AgentStamp

team_trust_check

Assess a multi-agent team's trustworthiness with an aggregate score (0-100), identify weakest links, and view per-member breakdown. Determines trust status when score is 10 or higher with at least 2 members.

Instructions

Trust verdict for a multi-agent team. Returns aggregate trust score (0-100), weakest-link analysis, and per-member breakdown. Teams with score >= 10 and 2+ members are considered trusted.

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>"
    },
    "name": "team_trust_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_id`	Yes	Team ID to check trust for (e.g. team_abc123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0May 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the output structure (aggregate score, weakest-link, per-member breakdown) and the trust threshold logic (score >= 10 and 2+ members). While it does not discuss potential failure modes or operational details, it gives a clear picture of what the tool returns and its decision rule, which is sufficient for a read-only check.

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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured: the first sentence states purpose and output, the second sentence provides the trust threshold. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the trusted condition. It omits minor details like error behavior or interpretation of the weakest-link analysis, but these are not critical for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single `team_id` parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Trust verdict for a multi-agent team.' It specifies the output (aggregate trust score, weakest-link analysis, per-member breakdown) and even defines the trusted threshold. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `trust_check` or `trust_compare` by focusing specifically on team-level trust.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (checking trust for a multi-agent team) and implies it is for team-level assessments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for individual trust checks via `trust_check` or comparisons via `trust_compare`. No exclusions are stated, but the context is enough for most use cases.

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