Skip to main content
Glama

Place and time consistency check

consilience_verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a media artefact is physically consistent with the place and time it is claimed to have been captured. Payload size is capped and calls are throttled.

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": {
      "bytes_base64": "<bytes_base64>"
    },
    "name": "consilience_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_idNoOptional caller reference.
claimedNoClaimed capture place and time.
bytes_base64YesThe artefact bytes, base64.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely new operational facts — a payload size cap and call throttling — but states neither the limit values nor the return semantics (verdict, score, or error shape), which matter for a verification tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core check and followed by the operational constraints. No filler, though the throttling remark is vague enough to be of limited use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a verification tool with no output schema and an untyped nested `claimed` object, the description should say what a result looks like and what the claim object must contain. It covers only the purpose and two unspecified limits, so an agent cannot predict the response.

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 description coverage is reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description only echoes the 'claimed place and time' meaning. The nested `claimed` object has no defined sub-properties anywhere, and the description does not say what fields it expects, leaving a real semantic hole.

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 a specific verb and object: check whether a media artefact is physically consistent with its claimed capture place and time. That is enough to distinguish it from the credential/mandate/anchor verification siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says what is checked but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the other verify/resolve siblings, no prerequisites, and no indication of what to do with an inconclusive result.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources