Skip to main content
Glama

DCL Trust Oracle — AI/LLM Output Audit (x402 MCP)

by com.fronesislabs

Basic Audit Decode

dcl_audit_decode
Read-onlyIdempotent

POST-ACTION Basic Audit ($0.10). Retrieves a record from the tamper-evident chain by tx_hash.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashYesTransaction hash of the audit chain record to retrieve.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoSet if tx_hash was not found; other fields are omitted.
reasonNoExplanation recorded for the verdict.
tx_hashNoHash of the audit chain record.
verdictNoCOMMIT or NO_COMMIT.
agent_idNoIdentifier of the agent tied to this record.
prev_hashNoHash of the preceding record in the chain.
seal_textNoHuman-readable Leibniz Layer verification seal.
task_typeNoTask type tag recorded with this entry.
timestampNoUnix timestamp when the record was created.
confidenceNoConfidence score recorded for the verdict.
verify_urlNoPublic URL to independently verify this seal.
chain_indexNoSequential index of the record in the chain.
chain_integrityNoTrue if the full chain verifies as intact.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / payment_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Optional payment identifier returned by a previous call when payment is required",
-  "title": "Payment Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by noting the $0.10 cost and the 'tamper-evident chain,' which conveys integrity and append-only behavior. This is meaningful supplemental information for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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: two short clauses with no wasted words. The cost and action type are front-loaded, followed immediately by the core operation and lookup key. Every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter retrieval with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. The missing sibling differentiation and explicit usage context keep it from a 5, but an agent can correctly invoke the tool with the information provided.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'by tx_hash' and 'retrieves a record' adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already describes tx_hash as the 'Transaction hash of the audit chain record to retrieve.'

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 states a clear verb and resource: it 'Retrieves a record from the tamper-evident chain by tx_hash.' This is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool dcl_audit_decode_deep, relying only on the word 'Basic' in the title for differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dcl_audit_decode_deep. The 'POST-ACTION' and 'Basic' labels provide only a weak implied context, with no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction, and no sibling is named.

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

All DCL Trust Oracle — AI/LLM Output Audit (x402 MCP) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is meaningful overlap among the many dcl_evaluate_* variants (e.g., fast/strict/jailbreak/safety, secrets/wallet/pii, mev/signal/trade), so an agent could easily pick the wrong one. The descriptions are detailed and do help, but the boundaries between policies are subtle enough that the set is not clearly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dcl_evaluate_* family is highly consistent, and the remaining tools (dcl_commit, dcl_audit_decode, dcl_audit_decode_deep, dcl_pipeline_start) still follow the same snake_case dcl_ prefix convention. Minor deviations like using adjectives/adverbs in evaluate_fast/strict and noun-verb ordering in dcl_pipeline_start keep it from a perfect 5.

Tool Count3/5

18 tools is on the heavy side, especially since many are single-policy evaluators that could arguably be consolidated behind a policy parameter. That said, the tool count is justified by distinct pricing tiers and the breadth of audit categories, so it is borderline rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The audit lifecycle is well covered: pre-action evaluation, post-action scans, sanitization, final commit, and on-chain retrieval/verification. Minor gaps exist—no list/query tool for the append-only chain and no way to define custom policies—but the core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources