get_review_packThe published sample evidence pack: fixed review question, bound receipts, disclosure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack_id | No | Pack id. Only the published "sample" pack is available without an account. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies that the result is a 'published sample evidence pack' with 'fixed review question, bound receipts, disclosure,' which clarifies the nature of the returned data. No contradictions with annotations. The description doesn't mention auth requirements beyond the parameter hint, but annotations already cover the read-only nature.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose and key attributes. It front-loads the core function and avoids fluff. Could be slightly improved for clarity, but overall efficient.
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?
Given the tool has a simple signature (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks information about what the output looks like (is it a file? JSON? format?), and the distinction between 'sample' and other packs is ambiguous. The presence of sibling tools like get_sample_receipt suggests potential overlap, and the description does not fully disambiguate. The lack of output schema increases the burden on the description to describe the return value, which it does not.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter (pack_id) that has a meaningful description. The main description adds context about the pack being 'published sample' and its contents, which enhances understanding of what the pack_id parameter refers to. Since there is only one parameter and schema coverage is complete, the description provides additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
The description states it retrieves a 'published sample evidence pack' with specific attributes (fixed review question, bound receipts, disclosure). However, 'published sample' is ambiguous—does it always return the sample pack or any published pack? The verb 'Get' is clear, but the resource scope could be clearer, especially given the single parameter pack_id and the annotation that only the 'sample' pack is available without an account.
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?
The description implies this tool is for accessing published evidence packs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like get_sample_receipt or verify_evidence_pack. Sibling tools suggest a focus on evidence/receipt operations, but no guidance is given on whether this is for general access or only for the sample pack. The context that only 'sample' is available without an account is embedded in the parameter description, not the main tool description.
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.
Most tools have clear distinct jobs: decode, verify, get, list, summarize. The only mildly overlapping pairs are decode_receipt vs explain_attestation_format and verify_receipt vs verify_evidence_pack, but the scopes are well described.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun: decode_receipt, get_public_key, list_my_receipts, verify_receipt. workspace_summary breaks the pattern by being noun-only, but the rest are consistent enough to be predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused attestation and receipt-verification server. Each tool serves a distinct operation from fetching samples and keys to decoding, verifying, listing, and summarizing receipts.
The read/verify workflow is well covered: format explanation, decoding, single-receipt verification, pack verification, sample artifacts, workspace listing, and summary. The main gap is that transparency proofs can be retrieved but there is no corresponding tool for independently verifying a transparency proof.