Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agy-profiles

agy-profiles

by harrymove-ctrl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

obligations_verify

Run live security self-checks across isolation, MCP scrubbing, PID matching, and CSRF guards to confirm profile obligations are met.

Instructions

Run live security self-checks across isolation, MCP scrubbing, PID matching, and CSRF guards.

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": "obligations_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations and no output schema are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Live' suggests runtime probing, but the description does not state whether checks are read-only, require permissions, can modify state, or how long they take.

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?

One tightly scoped sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler. Every phrase contributes to specifying what is checked.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-parameter security verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition says what areas are checked but nothing about the result format or pass/fail reporting. That leaves the agent unable to predict what it gets back or how to interpret it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to add; the zero-parameter baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100%, but that coverage is vacuous because the schema has no properties.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('security self-checks') and enumerates four check domains: isolation, MCP scrubbing, PID matching, and CSRF guards. It is clear what is checked, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from a sibling such as system_doctor.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'self-checks' implies verification, but the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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