DocImprint

Verify Action Receipt

receipt.verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Independently verify a signed action receipt (rcpt_...) returned by bundle.get, bundle.verify, bundle.notarize, collection.add_document, or listed via receipt.list. Free — no credits consumed. Proves both that the receipt signature is authentic AND that the manifest_sha256 it was bound to still matches the bundle's current manifest — i.e. that the action was not performed against a stale or since-superseded document. Use for third-party audit of an agent's prior actions. Returns: { receipt_id, valid: boolean, signature_valid: boolean, manifest_matches_current: boolean, bundle_id, agent_id, action, manifest_sha256, signer_address, signed_at, tampered: string[] } Example prompts:

"Verify action receipt rcpt_550e8400 is authentic and still current."
"Was this receipt signed against the real document, or a stale copy?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt_id`	Yes	Action receipt ID (rcpt_...) returned in the receipt field of another tool's response. Example: "rcpt_550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`valid`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`tampered`	Yes
`bundle_id`	Yes
`signed_at`	Yes
`receipt_id`	Yes
`signer_address`	Yes
`manifest_sha256`	Yes
`signature_valid`	Yes
`manifest_matches_current`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; the description adds value by noting 'Free — no credits consumed' and detailing the dual verification (signature and manifest match), enriching the behavioral understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return type and example prompts. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description covers return fields, use case, and examples, fully sufficient given the rich annotations and output schema.

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% for the single parameter; the description adds the 'rcpt_...' prefix pattern and an example, but does not substantially extend 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 clearly states the tool verifies a signed action receipt, checking both signature authenticity and manifest match, distinguishing it from siblings like receipt.list (lists) and bundle.verify (different scope).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use for third-party audit' and lists the tools that produce receipts, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is well-defined against siblings.

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?