Skip to main content
Glama

track_action

Create Ed25519-signed receipts to record AI agent actions with SHA-256 hashed inputs and outputs. Tracks model costs, token usage, latency, and constraints to establish cryptographic audit trails.

Instructions

Create a completed Ed25519-signed receipt for an AI agent action with automatic SHA-256 hashing of input and output data. Records model usage, costs, latency, and constraint evaluations. Returns the signed receipt with receipt_id for future reference. Use this as the primary tool for recording agent actions — prefer over create_receipt + complete_receipt for single-step actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction name being recorded (e.g., "generate_code", "summarize_text", "classify_intent")
inputNoInput data passed to the agent — automatically hashed with SHA-256, raw data is never stored
outputNoOutput produced by the agent — automatically hashed with SHA-256, raw data is never stored
output_summaryNoHuman-readable summary of the output for audit purposes (max 500 chars recommended)
modelNoAI model used (e.g., "claude-sonnet-4-20250514", "gpt-4o", "gemini-2.0-flash")
tokens_inNoInput tokens consumed by the model
tokens_outNoOutput tokens generated by the model
cost_usdNoExecution cost in USD (e.g., 0.0045)
latency_msNoTotal execution time in milliseconds
tool_callsNoNames of tools called during this action (e.g., ["web_search", "code_exec"])
tagsNoArbitrary tags for filtering and categorization (e.g., ["production", "critical"])
confidenceNoConfidence score for the output quality, 0.0 to 1.0
metadataNoArbitrary key-value metadata attached to the receipt
parent_receipt_idNoParent receipt ID for chaining — links this receipt to a previous step
chain_idNoChain identifier for grouping related receipts — auto-generated if not provided
constraintsNoConstraint definitions to evaluate against this receipt (e.g., max_latency_ms, max_cost_usd, min_confidence)
expires_atNoISO 8601 datetime when this receipt expires (e.g., "2026-12-31T23:59:59Z")
ttl_msNoTime-to-live in milliseconds from now — alternative to expires_at
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the SHA-256 hashing behavior (privacy protection) and Ed25519 signing mechanism, plus return value structure ('signed receipt with receipt_id'). Minor deduction for omitting idempotency, failure modes, or persistence guarantees.

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?

Four tightly constructed sentences: purpose with technical specs, recorded metrics, return value, and usage guidance. Each sentence delivers unique information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and cryptographic details.

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 an 18-parameter tool with complex nested objects (constraints) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and primary workflow. Minor gap regarding the chaining mechanism (parent_receipt_id, chain_id) for multi-step receipts, though the single-step preference hint partially compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. While the description mentions 'automatic SHA-256 hashing,' this largely repeats the schema's property descriptions ('automatically hashed with SHA-256'). It adds semantic grouping ('Records model usage, costs, latency') but no parameter-specific syntax beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('completed Ed25519-signed receipt'), clearly distinguishing this as a cryptographic audit tool for AI actions. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming 'create_receipt + complete_receipt' as the alternative multi-step approach.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states 'Use this as the primary tool for recording agent actions' and provides clear when-not-to-use guidance ('prefer over create_receipt + complete_receipt for single-step actions'). This directly maps the tool to its optimal workflow context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/webaesbyamin/agent-receipts'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server