FreeSign

Verify audit chain

verify_audit_chain

Return an envelope's append-only audit-event hash chain together with a server-computed integrity verdict: every event_hash is recomputed from its canonical material, and the prev_event_hash linkage and per-envelope seq contiguity are checked. Evidence only, never PDF bytes. The raw events are included verbatim so the caller can independently re-derive the verdict instead of trusting chain.valid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`envelope_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`envelope_id`	Yes
`attested_audit_chain_head_hash`	Yes	The audit-chain head derived from the signer-signed v2 final payload (G-01), fed into the verdict's head cross-check. NULL until the envelope is finalized.
`attested_head_signature_verified`	Yes	True when the final-payload signature carrying the attested head was re-verified against the signer's on-file public key. False when not finalized or the signature did not verify.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: recomputing event_hash, checking prev_event_hash linkage and seq contiguity, and including raw events for independent verification. This gives the agent a complete understanding of the tool's internal logic.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure efficiently conveys purpose and unique characteristics.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so explaining return values is unnecessary. The description covers the verification checks and mentions raw event inclusion. It implicitly assumes the envelope exists, but this is reasonable 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?

There is only one parameter (envelope_id) and schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema's pattern. The purpose is clear from context, but adding explanation about the envelope_id format or source would improve semantics.

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 returns the audit-event hash chain and an integrity verdict for an envelope. It specifies the resource (envelope) and action (verify audit chain), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_receipt or verify_document_hash.

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 states 'Evidence only, never PDF bytes,' guiding when to use this tool for integrity verification versus retrieving documents. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

All FreeSign 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creation of an envelope, retrieval of OTS proof, retrieval of full receipt, verification of audit chain integrity, and lookup by document hash. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_object' pattern with underscores (e.g., create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, verify_audit_chain). Verbs are clear and objects specific.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—envelope creation, evidence retrieval, and verification. No unnecessary tools and sufficient coverage for core operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers creation, evidence retrieval, and verification of audit chains and document hashes. A minor gap is the absence of a direct signature verification tool, but this is partially addressed by get_receipt providing signature data.

Resources

Need Help?