DocImprint

Verify Evidence Bundle

bundle.verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the cryptographic integrity of an evidence bundle (ev_...) owned by your API key. Checks manifest hash, EIP-191 signature, and R2 artifact hashes. Free — no credits consumed. Use when you need to confirm a bundle has not been tampered with. For quick metadata lookups (without full crypto verification), use bundle.get instead. Also returns a signed action receipt (rcpt_...) binding this verify call to the bundle manifest — list with receipt.list, verify with receipt.verify. Returns: { valid: boolean, bundle_id, manifest_sha256, checks: { status, manifest_hash, signature, artifacts: [{ name, ok }] }, tampered: string[], signer_address: string|null, attestation_tx: string|null, url: string, captured_at: string, receipt: ActionReceipt|null } Example prompts:

"Verify the cryptographic integrity of bundle ev_550e8400."
"Is this evidence bundle still valid and untampered?"
"Deep-check the manifest hash and signature of my bundle."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`valid`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`tampered`	Yes
`bundle_id`	Yes
`captured_at`	No
`attestation_tx`	No
`signer_address`	No
`manifest_sha256`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the tool is free, no credits consumed, and that it returns a signed action receipt (rcpt_...). It also details the full return structure including which checks are performed. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the main action and provides essential context. It includes a full output schema and example prompts, which adds length but is structured. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 single parameter, clear annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, example prompts, and return structure.

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?

The input schema already describes the bundle_id parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds context such as 'owned by your API key' and emphasizes the ev_ prefix. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 the tool verifies cryptographic integrity of an evidence bundle, explicitly distinguishing from bundle.get for quick metadata lookups. It specifies the verb (verify), resource (evidence bundle), and scope (cryptographic integrity including manifest hash, signature, artifact hashes).

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need to confirm a bundle has not been tampered with') and provides an alternative ('For quick metadata lookups (without full crypto verification), use bundle.get instead'). It also mentions related receipt operations.

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?