api

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bound to still matches the bundle's current manifest — i.e. that the action was not performed against a stale or since-superseded document.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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description adds beyond annotations: free, no credits consumed, explains what the verification proves (authenticity + manifest match). Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, no contradiction.

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?

Description is well-organized with sections, example, and output schema. Slightly verbose with example prompts but 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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return values (via output schema), use cases, and examples. No gaps given tool complexity.

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?

Single parameter receipt_id. Schema has description, but description adds origin (from other tools) and example. Adds value beyond schema, though schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies a signed action receipt, distinguishes it from siblings like receipt.list and bundle.get, and provides explicit purpose via verbs 'independently verify' and example prompts.

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?

Context is clear: use for third-party audit. Example prompts guide appropriate usage. No explicit when-not-to-use, but siblings imply alternatives.

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

All api 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with no overlap. The category prefixes (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url) and specific action names (get, notarize, verify, create, list, etc.) ensure that an agent can unambiguously select the correct tool for any task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent category.action or category.action_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., bundle.get, collection.add_document, url.translate). No mixed conventions or irregular names, making the pattern predictable and easy to learn.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the set is somewhat large but each tool addresses a distinct need within a broad domain (evidence management, document AI, collections, URL processing, job tracking, receipts). The count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but still reasonable given the scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has notable gaps: there is no tool to create or delete an evidence bundle, nor to update collections or bundles. The core workflow of creating a bundle from a document is missing, and the lifecycle is incomplete, which would likely cause agent failures in typical use cases.

Resources

Need Help?