lookup_manifestLooks up the SHA-256 of an evidence package's manifest.json in ProofSnap's public ledger: whether ProofSnap issued exactly this manifest, and when.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | SHA-256 of manifest.json, for example the manifest_hash of a capture |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| eidas | No | ||
| issued | No | ||
| issued_at | No | ||
| manifest_sha256 | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by identifying the public ledger and clarifying that the result covers both issuance and timing, though it does not discuss not-found behavior or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single efficient sentence with the verification target front-loaded. Every clause contributes to understanding what is looked up and what the result establishes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema and annotations covering safety. The description supplies the remaining semantic context, namely the public ledger and the issuance question, so an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including a pattern and example for the hash parameter. The description reinforces that the hash is of manifest.json, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it looks up the SHA-256 of a manifest.json in ProofSnap's public ledger. It also states the exact question answered, whether ProofSnap issued this manifest and when, so an agent can understand the operation without reading the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for use: verifying issuance of a specific manifest against a public ledger. There are no sibling tools to route between, but it does not state explicit exclusions or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.