get_security_receipt
Read a previously issued public, input-redacted receipt.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
security-preflight
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the operation is a read ('Read') but does not explain error handling, idempotency, or details about 'input-redacted'. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and key attributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It lacks details on error scenarios and the exact meaning of 'input-redacted', but the core purpose is conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the tool description should compensate. However, no additional meaning is added for the receipt_id parameter beyond its name and type. The parameter is self-explanatory but not elaborated.
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 reads a security receipt, specifying 'public' and 'input-redacted' characteristics, which distinguishes it from sibling tools describe_agent and security_preflight.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (describe_agent, security_preflight) or any prerequisites. The description simply states the function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: describe_agent provides context, security_preflight runs the check, get_security_receipt retrieves results. No overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Two tools follow verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, get_security_receipt), but security_preflight is noun_noun, introducing inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools cover the essential operations for a focused security preflight service: describe, run, and retrieve receipt. No excess or deficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: describing the agent, running a static preflight, and retrieving the signed receipt. No obvious gaps.