records-vault

Verify a record by its id

verify_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify an Eformogi receipt id with no login and no API key: the same check the public /verify page performs. Returns the kind, the title or course fields, the issued date, and the signers' names and identity levels, worded exactly as the page words them. Never an email, a user id, or a person id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	An Eformogi receipt id: tr_, cr_, ws_, att_, wn_, wl_, or kb_ followed by 12 hex characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that no authentication or API key is required, enumerates what is returned (kind, title/course fields, issued date, signer names and identity levels), states the output is worded exactly as the public page, and adds an explicit privacy guarantee ('Never an email, a user id, or a person id'). The annotations only cover read-only/idempotent safety, so this content is genuinely additive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its no-auth property, then the return shape and the privacy carve-out. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing the returned fields and their phrasing, which is the main completeness burden for a one-parameter read. It omits what happens when an id is malformed or not found (error vs. an unverified result), a meaningful gap for a verification tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter's description already spells out the full prefix set and 12-hex-character format. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (an Eformogi receipt id) and anchors it to a known behavior: 'the same check the public /verify page performs.' That framing makes it clearly distinct from the sibling documentation tools how_eformogi_works and read_spec without needing their schemas.

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 establishes clear context for use — verifying a receipt id with no login or API key — which implicitly separates it from the informational siblings. It does not, however, explicitly say when not to use it or name how_eformogi_works/read_spec as alternatives for explanatory questions.

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

All records-vault tools Inspect

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

Need Help?