Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Atlas

Atlas

by corpussanctum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Report Completed Effects

atlas_commit_effect

Report the actual outcome and effects of an action against a permitted receipt so Atlas records them in the signed audit log and flags any impact the receipt did not cover.

Instructions

After acting on a permitted receipt, report what was actually done. Atlas records it in the signed audit log and flags any effect the receipt did not cover. One commit per receipt.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>",
      "outcome": "<outcome>"
    },
    "name": "atlas_commit_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
effectsNoEffects that actually happened
outcomeYes
receipt_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the commit is recorded in a signed audit log, uncovered effects are flagged rather than blocked, and one commit per receipt implies repeats are not accepted. Missing is what happens on failure or a mismatched receipt, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then behavior, then the one-commit constraint. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the core purpose and the audit consequence. It leaves gaps on what the caller gets back, whether an uncovered effect causes failure, and how 'note' and 'receipt_id' should be formed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must carry weight. It clarifies that 'effects' should be what actually happened versus what the receipt covered, which is genuine semantic value, but 'note' and 'receipt_id' get no explanation and the relationship between 'outcome' and the effects list is left implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: report what was actually done after acting on a permitted receipt, with the record landing in the signed audit log. The sequencing ('after acting on a permitted receipt') implicitly distinguishes it from the authorization and verification siblings without naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trigger condition is explicit: use this after acting on a permitted receipt. It also states the cardinality constraint ('one commit per receipt'), which tells the agent not to batch. There is no explicit exclusion of alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools