FAHCE Integrity Repair

fahce_verify_repaired_output

Idempotent

For a revised answer needing review, return a scoped determination and receipt against caller-supplied independent evidence; no external verification is established. Production x402 payments, delivery of purchased results, gateway settlement and seller receipt were verified end to end on October 14, 2026. Paid REST determinations persist immutable receipts and meter usage. MCP discovery only; tools/call cannot purchase. No human authority or external execution is granted. Example arguments: {"request":{"schema":"FAHCE_MACHINE_REQUEST_V1","candidate_output":"Deployment failed.","evidence":[{"id":"deployment_log","kind":"log","source_label":"independent deployment log","text":"Deployment failed."}]}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Send this request object alone to the paid REST endpoint. Entire JSON must fit 524288 UTF-8 bytes, including MCP wrapper, labels and escaping; per-field ceilings cannot all be used together. Character limits use UTF-16 code units.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional REST Idempotency-Key; bind unchanged operation, input and authorization. Reuse conflicts on changes; recover saved results instead of paying again.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repair`	Yes
`schema`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`binding`	No
`receipt`	Yes
`authority`	No
`diagnosis`	Yes
`operation`	Yes
`input_hash`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Determination UUID, identical to receipt.case_id and receipt.run_id. Use this UUID as receipt_id in GET /api/v1/receipts/{receipt_id}. Error-envelope request_id is a separate HTTP trace; use its receipt_id when present.
`verification`	Yes
`execution_state`	No
`next_safe_action`	Yes
`evidence_provenance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Added value: +"Optional REST Idempotency-Key; bind unchanged operation, input and authorization. Reuse conflicts on changes; recover saved results instead of paying again."

changedInput schema / properties / request / description

Previous value: -"The entire UTF-8 encoded JSON body must fit within 524288 bytes (512 KiB), including all fields, labels, escaping and JSON overhead. Per-field maxima are independent ceilings; they cannot all be used at once. MCP includes its JSON-RPC wrapper in the same body ceiling. Character limits are UTF-16 code units."New value: +"Send this request object alone to the paid REST endpoint. Entire JSON must fit 524288 UTF-8 bytes, including MCP wrapper, labels and escaping; per-field ceilings cannot all be used together. Character limits use UTF-16 code units."

addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / evidence / description

Added value: +"Caller-supplied records; sources are not authenticated or fetched. An empty array supplies no corroboration."

addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / evidence / items / properties / claim_bearing / description

Added value: +"True marks candidate claims, not corroboration. False or omission does not override candidate-source labels."

addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / evidence / items / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"Unique evidence identifier within this request."
```
addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / evidence / items / properties / kind / description
```
Added value: +"Record format category, not a trust level."
```
addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / evidence / items / properties / source_label / description
```
Added value: +"Source attribution; candidate/output labels mark untrusted claims, not independent proof."
```
addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / evidence / items / properties / text / description
```
Added value: +"Record content to review; never payment authorization as semantic proof."
```

changedInput schema / properties / request / properties / expected_output / description

Previous value: -"Optional response-contract and repair-target context for all operations, including Diagnose. Supported response-format directives (for example, Return JSON) and implemented explicit constraints can affect the diagnosis. Ordinary matching or mismatching factual text is not compared for string equality and is not a trusted answer oracle or supporting evidence; supply independent evidence for factual claims."New value: +"Optional format/constraint and repair-target context for all operations, including Diagnose. Recognized directives (e.g. Return JSON) can affect diagnosis. Factual text is not compared for string equality or trusted as evidence; supply independent records."

addedInput schema / properties / request / properties / schema / description
```
Added value: +"Request contract identifier; use this exact value."
```

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description usefully explains why by disclosing that paid REST determinations persist immutable receipts and meter usage, and that results can be recovered instead of paying again. It also states the authority limits (no human authority, no external execution) that annotations cannot express. The date-stamped "verified end to end on October 14, 2026" claim is unverifiable filler rather than disclosure, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the second sentence about production x402 payments, gateway settlement and seller receipt being verified on October 14, 2026 contributes nothing to an agent deciding whether to call this tool. Combined with the trailing example, roughly half the text is padding around a one-sentence purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers the cost/metering model, receipt persistence, idempotency recovery and authority limits. Scope boundaries (no external verification, no purchasing via tools/call) are stated. Only the missing differentiation from the diagnose sibling keeps it short of complete.

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 both parameters, including nested evidence fields and the idempotency key, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The worked example argument shows a realistic evidence record, which is mildly additive, but the description adds no constraints beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause states a specific verb and resource: return a scoped determination and receipt for a revised answer, judged against caller-supplied independent evidence. That is a real, non-tautological purpose. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling fahce_diagnose_integrity, which also operates on candidate_output, so an agent cannot cleanly route between them from the text alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"For a revised answer needing review" gives an implied when-to-use condition, and "no external verification is established" scopes expectations. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the three siblings, leaving the agent to infer which tool to pick.

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

All FAHCE Integrity Repair tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?