Detect a C2PA / Content Credentials manifest by scanning the raw image bytes for JUMBF / C2PA markers and lifting any human-readable claim generator. Provide an image url. Read-only; one HTTPS GET; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Image URL to inspect |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, that it performs one HTTPS GET, and that it is free. This is good transparency for a simple tool, though it does not mention failure modes or output format.
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?
Three sentences: each sentence serves a distinct purpose (action, instruction, behavioral context). No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.
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 no output schema, the description hints at the output ('lifting any human-readable claim generator') but does not fully specify return value structure. It covers main aspects of input and behavior, making it mostly complete for a simple tool.
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%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds 'Provide an image url,' which repeats the schema description without additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 detects a C2PA/Content Credentials manifest by scanning raw image bytes for JUMBF markers and lifting the claim generator. It distinguishes from sibling tools like watermark_detect or ai_likelihood by specifying the technical method and output.
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 when needing to check for C2PA credentials on an image URL but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not guided.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.