Return the TrustAI Verification MCP self-description: operator, what the server verifies, the public tools, the boundary it never crosses (it never adjudicates), and links to the public surfaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful context: not just what is returned, but also the server's boundary ('it never adjudicates') and that it includes what the server verifies. This goes beyond the tool name, though it doesn't discuss side effects or failure modes (still a read-only getter).
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 sentence that efficiently front-loads the main action ('Return') and lists contents in a clear, structured manner. Every clause adds useful information with no wasted words.
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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, its scope (self-description), and even notes a key operational boundary. It fully covers what an agent needs to know to decide to call it.
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?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline is 4 as no params exist, and the description doesn't need to add anything further.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the TrustAI Verification MCP self-description' and enumerates specific contents (operator, server verifies, public tools, boundary, links). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_health or list_checks.
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 usage for anyone needing an overview of the TrustAI Verification MCP, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this instead of sibling tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative guidance.
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 unique, non-overlapping purpose: descriptor for server metadata, health for diagnostics, list_checks for the available checks, and review_legal_text for the actual analysis. There is no ambiguity about which tool to call for a given need.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_descriptor, get_health, list_checks, review_legal_text. The conventions are uniform and predictive, making the tool set easy to navigate.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: one primary analysis tool supported by three essential utility tools (self-description, health, and checks list). This is squarely within the ideal 3–15 range and each tool earns its place.
The tool set fully covers the server's stated purpose: reviewing legal text for structural red-flags, plus providing necessary context (descriptor, checks list) and operational status (health). No obvious gaps exist; the boundaries (never adjudicates) are explicitly documented.