Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proofgate-runtime

proofgate-runtime

by gamai-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

runtime_info

Returns ProofGate Runtime version and capability details so MCP clients can confirm available verification, receipt, and prompt-injection filtering features.

Instructions

ProofGate Runtime version and capabilities.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "runtime_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only informational lookup but never says so explicitly. For a zero-parameter introspection tool the risk is low, but nothing is stated about return shape or side-effect freedom.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted wording, and the key content is front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description says what the tool is, which is nearly enough for such a simple call. It could add one line about return format or intended use, but the gap is minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing in the schema requiring additional explanation.

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?

Names a specific resource (ProofGate Runtime version and capabilities) that is clearly distinct from the sibling tools verify_claims, make_receipt, verify_receipt, and check_injection. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no guidance on when to call it or why, e.g., discovering capabilities before invoking verify_claims or checking version compatibility. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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