DocImprint

Get Evidence Bundle

bundle.get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metadata for an evidence bundle (ev_...) owned by your API key. Free — no credits consumed. Use for quick status/metadata lookups such as checking if a bundle is complete, finding its notarization status, or viewing retention/legal hold info. For deep cryptographic integrity verification (hash + signature + artifact checks), use bundle.verify instead. Also returns a signed action receipt (rcpt_...) binding this lookup to the bundle manifest — list with receipt.list, verify with receipt.verify. Returns: { bundle_id, source_url, mode, status: "pending"|"complete"|"failed", manifest_sha256, manifest_signature, signer_address, attestation_tx, attestation_at, eas_uid, parent_bundle_id, superseded_by, legal_hold: boolean, retention_until, created_at, receipt: ActionReceipt|null } Example prompts:

"Show me the metadata for bundle ev_550e8400."
"Check the status and notarization info of my evidence bundle."
"Get me the details of bundle [ev_id] — is it complete?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bundle_id`	Yes	Evidence bundle ID (ev_...) returned by extract or bundle.notarize. Example: "ev_550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`eas_uid`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`bundle_id`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`legal_hold`	Yes
`source_url`	Yes
`superseded_by`	Yes
`attestation_at`	Yes
`attestation_tx`	Yes
`signer_address`	Yes
`manifest_sha256`	Yes
`retention_until`	Yes
`parent_bundle_id`	Yes
`manifest_signature`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the operation is free ('no credits consumed') and returns a signed action receipt, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear intro, usage guidance, return fields, and example prompts. It is slightly verbose with examples but remains efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema in the description, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, return format, and alternatives.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter bundle_id. The description adds context by stating the bundle is 'owned by your API key' and provides example prompts, which clarify the parameter's usage.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve metadata for an evidence bundle (ev_...) owned by your API key.' It specifies the exact resource and action, and distinguishes from sibling bundle.verify.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use for quick status/metadata lookups' and directs to bundle.verify for deep integrity verification. Also mentions using receipt.list and receipt.verify for the returned receipt.

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

All DocImprint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, grouped by domain (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url). Descriptions and naming make it easy to differentiate between similar tools like url.extract vs document.extract_text or collection.search vs collection.ask.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the same prefix.group_action pattern in snake_case (e.g., account.quota, bundle.get, collection.create). No mixing of conventions, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive set of operations for document and evidence management. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels well-scoped without being bloated or sparse.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface lacks explicit create and delete operations for bundles and collections. Bundles appear to be created externally, and there is no tool to remove a bundle or collection. This is a notable gap given the server's stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?