Skip to main content
Glama

Verify a signed audit export

gate_audit_verify
Read-only

Returns intact or broken_at for a supplied signed export; use it to check a gate_audit_proof export rather than retrieve audit rows. Recomputes the chain and project signature; broken_at is a one-based row position. Does not approve actions or change permissions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "admin_key": "<admin_key>",
      "proof": "<proof>"
    },
    "name": "gate_audit_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofYesThe full signed export from gate_audit_proof
admin_keyYesThe project admin key (ga_...). Read it from the .env; never print it.
project_idYesThe project id from gate_create_project, e.g. p1a2b3...

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds behavior beyond annotations: it recomputes the chain and project signature, returns intact or broken_at, and explains broken_at as a one-based row position. It also clarifies the non-mutating scope, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Two compact sentences with the outcome front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a clarifying constraint. Every clause carries useful information with no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains the return values and the meaning of broken_at. It is largely complete for a verification tool, though it could say more about malformed proofs or the full response shape.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including proof, admin_key, and project_id. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it verifies a supplied signed audit export and returns intact or broken_at. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying to check a gate_audit_proof export rather than retrieve audit rows.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives clear when-to-use guidance by naming gate_audit_proof as the source of the export and contrasting this tool with gate_audit retrieval. It also rules out unrelated actions with 'Does not approve actions or change permissions.'

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources