Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

crosscheck

by com.crosscheckapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a crosscheck receipt

verify_receipt

Free. Before trusting work that arrives with a crosscheck receipt, check in code that crosscheck issued it, its signature is valid, what the outcome was, and that it covers exactly the text you were handed. Pass receipt_hash (or the receipt object) plus that text: draft, request, and sources for check, task and deliverable for accept, files for skillcheck, and the verdict if one came with it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoaccept: the task the receipt should cover
draftNocheck: the draft the receipt should cover
filesNoskillcheck: the skill's files
receiptNoOr the whole receipt object {body, hash, sig}
requestNocheck: the human's request, if the check had one
sourcesNocheck: the sources, if the check had any, in the same order (strings or {text})
verdictNoThe verdict that came with the receipt, to confirm nobody edited it
deliverableNoaccept: the deliverable the receipt should cover
receipt_hashNoThe receipt's hash (the last part of its /r/ proof link)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / request
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "check: the human's request, if the check had one",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is 'Free' (cost transparency) and it validates issuer, signature, outcome, and coverage. However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or what the verification response looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Purpose and the 'before trusting' trigger are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently bundles all parameter guidance. The cost aside 'Free.' is terse and useful, though the long second sentence lists many parameters in a dense run-on.

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 9-parameter, zero-required, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action, the trust rationale, and per-type input guidance. The noticeable gap is the absence of any statement about the return/verification result shape, which the missing output schema leaves undocumented.

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 100% and the schema already labels each parameter with its receipt-type context (e.g., 'accept: the task the receipt should cover'), so the description's mapping of draft/request/sources/task/deliverable/files to receipt types largely restates structured data. It confirms the receipt_hash-or-receipt alternative but adds little beyond the 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 states a specific verb (verify) and resource (crosscheck receipt) and enumerates exactly what is validated: issuer, signature validity, outcome, and text coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check, accept, and skillcheck, which appear to produce the receipts this tool verifies.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('Before trusting work that arrives with a crosscheck receipt') and even maps which inputs apply to which receipt type (check/accept/skillcheck). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, keeping it short of a 5.

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

All crosscheck toolsInspect
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