Skip to main content
Glama

agent-transaction-control

by network.flint

Generate Authorization Scope

generate_authorization_scope
Read-only

Use this tool when an agent commerce workflow needs a well-formed delegated authorization scope before issuing a signed verification record. It creates financial, counterparty, action, and time boundaries that can be passed to issue_authorization_record as declared_scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoAsset or unit, such as USD, USDC, or credits. Defaults to USD.
purposeNoBusiness purpose or task label for the delegated authority.
principal_idNoAccountable principal granting delegated authority.
allowed_actionsNoPermitted actions, such as checkout, paid_api_access, x402_request, or stablecoin_transfer.
time_window_endYesISO-8601 timestamp for scope expiration.
max_amount_per_txYesMaximum amount allowed per transaction.
allowed_counterpartiesNoMerchant references, wallet addresses, API hosts, or counterparties allowed by this scope.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. Description adds that it 'creates boundaries' but does not elaborate on side effects or idempotency beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with usage context, no redundant words. Efficient.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains when and why to use it and how it relates to issue_authorization_record, though it could briefly note the return value.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in schema. The description mentions categories (financial, counterparty, action, time boundaries) that loosely map to parameters but adds no new semantics beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'generate' and resource 'authorization scope', specifies when to use (agent commerce workflow before issuing a signed verification record), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it produces input for issue_authorization_record.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before issuing a signed verification record') and identifies the sibling tool that consumes the output, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios.

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

All agent-transaction-control 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: manifest creation, scope generation, passport lifecycle, authorization issuance/verification, reputation lookup, transaction scanning, and architecture validation. Overlapping terms like 'issue_agent_passport' and 'issue_authorization_record' are clearly differentiated by their objects and descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear verbs (create, generate, get, issue, lookup, run, update, validate, verify). Even where verbs are semantically close (issue vs generate), the pattern remains uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for an agent transaction control domain, covering identity, authorization, verification, trust, scanning, and compliance checks without redundancy. Each tool occupies a necessary niche in the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle coverage is strong: passports can be created, read, and updated, authorizations can be scoped, issued, and verified, and reputation/manifests are accessible. Notable minor gaps include no explicit revocation or outcome-submission tool, but agents can still complete the primary transaction flow.

Resources