AtlasClose Governance Demo

Bailiff verify

atlas.bailiff_verify

Practice mode, Consumer Pulse copy only (Bailiff demo, step 6): list this copy's docket entries for the order in order (order, refusal, warning, appeal, ruling, second refusal, enforcement) and verify the Bailiff enforcement receipt. Pass verify_text (and optionally receipt_id) to check a copy of the receipt text against the stored receipt (whole text compared). Pass ruling_id (an enforcement ruling id) to get its public verification block: the court's public key, the signature and the exact signed bytes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "actor_token": "<actor_token>"
    },
    "name": "atlas.bailiff_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`matter_id`	No	Id of your practice copy (returned by atlas.enter_demo). Optional when you have one copy.
`ruling_id`	No
`receipt_id`	No
`actor_token`	Yes	Your credential from atlas.enroll or atlas.authenticate. Send it on every call after enrolling.
`verify_text`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / ruling_id
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
AddedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds useful behavior beyond annotations: whole-text comparison semantics, and that the ruling mode returns the court's public key, signature and exact signed bytes. However, annotations set readOnlyHint=false while the description portrays a pure 'verify' operation and never discloses what the write side effect is (e.g. recording the verification), leaving the mutation behavior unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with mode and scope, then the two invocation paths in order; the parenthetical docket sequence is dense but earns its place by showing the expected ordering. One long compound sentence carries a lot, but there is little waste.

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 five-parameter, two-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers both branches and even enumerates the verification block's contents. The remaining gap is the docket-listing return shape and the undisclosed write side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 40% schema coverage the description carries real weight: it defines verify_text as text to check against the stored receipt (whole-text match), clarifies receipt_id is optional and paired with verify_text, and explains ruling_id as an enforcement ruling id. matter_id and actor_token are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: list this copy's docket entries and verify the Bailiff enforcement receipt, with the two verification modes spelled out. It distinguishes itself from sibling bailiff_* tools via the 'step 6' / receipt-verification framing, though bundling a docket listing and a verification into one tool slightly muddies the single purpose.

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 scopes usage to 'Practice mode, Consumer Pulse copy only (Bailiff demo, step 6)' and gives the condition selecting each mode: verify_text to compare text, ruling_id to fetch the public verification block. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. atlas.pulse_verify_receipt) for the non-demo path, so the routing guidance is incomplete at the edges.

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

All AtlasClose Governance Demo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?