intentfence_verified_preflightPaid production preflight ($0.005 USDC on Base). Settles through x402 and returns a signed ES256 audit receipt plus settlement metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| proofs | No | ||
| subject | Yes | Agent or principal identifier. | |
| constraints | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the cost ($0.005), settlement method (x402), and output (signed receipt and metadata). However, does not mention that the call is not idempotent or that repeated calls incur additional cost, though annotations indicate non-idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence packs essential information but is dense. Could be slightly more structured to aid readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a complex tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description omits many details needed for correct usage, such as parameter meanings, constraints purpose, and the exact return format beyond a receipt.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (subject, action, proofs, constraints). With only 25% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with minimal guidance on how to construct the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it is a paid production preflight with specific cost and returns an audit receipt and metadata, distinguishing from free or unverified preflights. However, does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'intentfence_preflight'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'intentfence_preflight'. The cost implication is mentioned but not contextualized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from risk scanning to authorization, preflight checks, and specific data retrieval. Descriptions are detailed and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent 'intentfence_<descriptive_name>' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
10 tools is well-scoped for a security firewall server, covering a range of free and paid services without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The set covers assessment, authorization, and data retrieval, but lacks tools for managing the firewall configuration itself (e.g., allowlist CRUD), leaving some gaps in lifecycle coverage.