RealWorldAPIs

Verify API Requirement

verify_requirement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify whether one specific API can satisfy one exact requirement using the canonical Verified/High capability graph plus linked assertion evidence. Returns YES, NO, PARTIAL or UNKNOWN with matched capability, access/setup prerequisites, approval, safety, reversibility, reliability, coverage and other requested dimensions; direct provider facts remain distinct from inferred policy assertions. Unknown remains Unknown.

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": {
      "api": "<api>",
      "requirement": "<requirement>"
    },
    "name": "verify_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api`	Yes	Exact API slug or API name, for example nuki-web-api or Nuki Web API.
`location`	No	Optional geographic coverage requirement, for example Sweden. Coverage is returned as Unknown/Partial when the normalized capability graph does not contain enough location evidence.
`requirement`	Yes	Specific requirement to verify, for example 'remotely unlock a smart lock without human approval'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api`	Yes
`reasons`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`evidence`	No
`location`	No
`confidence`	Yes
`dimensions`	Yes
`consequence`	No
`limitations`	No
`requirement`	Yes
`prerequisites`	No
`schema_version`	Yes
`api_snapshot_date`	No
`assertion_backend`	No
`assertion_findings`	No
`evidence_semantics`	Yes
`matched_capability`	No
`capability_snapshot_date`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless discloses the response vocabulary (YES/NO/PARTIAL/UNKNOWN), what accompanies it (matched capability, prerequisites, approval, safety, coverage), and the important epistemic rule that provider facts stay distinct from inferred policy assertions while unknowns remain unknown. It stays short of a full description of confidence/pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the rest is dense with substantive content rather than filler. The second half is a long run-on list, slightly reducing readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 shape need not be explained, yet the description wisely spends its words on the epistemic distinction between direct provider facts and inferred policy assertions — the one thing the schema cannot convey. For a read-only verification tool this is close to 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%, so the schema already documents api, location, and requirement with examples. The description adds only marginal framing (that requested dimensions are echoed) and does not enrich the parameters beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: verify one API against one exact requirement, using the Verified/High capability graph plus assertion evidence. This clearly separates it from sibling find_api_for_task (search) and compare_apis (multi-API).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'one specific API ... one exact requirement' framing tells the agent this is a single-pair check rather than a search, and names the input contract implicitly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of 5.

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

All RealWorldAPIs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.