Get the current sharing configuration (access type, share URL, invited emails) for a verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verification_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context by listing the return fields (access type, share URL, invited emails), and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any permission requirements, error behavior, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a read tool.
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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and provides necessary details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return fields, and the output schema handles the formal return structure. The lack of permission/error notes is a minor gap, but the description is sufficient for a straightforward get operation.
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?
The schema has one parameter, verification_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description only says 'for a verification,' which essentially restates the parameter name and does not add meaningful information about how to obtain the ID, its format, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 clearly states the tool gets the current sharing configuration for a verification, listing specific elements (access type, share URL, invited emails). This distinguishes it from siblings like share_verification and unshare_verification, which imply modification, and from get_verification, which likely retrieves general verification info.
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 implies usage: to retrieve the current sharing state. It clearly distinguishes the read nature via 'Get', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Since the context is clear and no exclusions are needed, this is a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: verification creation (RAW+JPEG vs single-image), retrieval/listing, sharing, PSD export, upload helper, quota, tags, and marketplace listings are clearly separated. The closest pair — verify_photo and verify_content_credentials — is disambiguated by input type and forensic scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, request_, share_, unshare_, verify_. Single-item getters use get_, collection getters use list_, and the verification verbs are uniform.
14 tools is well within the well-scoped range and each maps to a distinct operation. The count covers core verification plus sharing, PSD export, uploads, quota, tags, and marketplace without feeling padded.
The core verification lifecycle is complete: upload, verify, retrieve, list, check quota, share/unshare, and export PSD. Minor gaps exist — tag assignment is only done via web app/API, PSD download happens outside MCP, and there are no delete/listing-management tools — but they do not block the primary workflow.
