Sigistry Plugin & Skill Catalog

Verify a Claude Code plugin (pre-publish, runs locally)

verify_plugin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the recipe to run the Sigistry verification methodology (the eight static checks that gate the Verified badge: manifest integrity, hook safety, agent tool scopes, command hygiene, skill structure, skill safety, no secrets, documentation) against a plugin BEFORE publishing it. The verification runs entirely on the local machine via a dependency-free open-source Node script; the plugin code never leaves the user's computer and this server performs no computation. Call this when the user wants their plugin or skill checked, then follow the returned steps: download the script, run it against the plugin directory, and fix any FAIL findings it reports.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pluginPath`	No	local path to the plugin directory, used to fill in the run command (optional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`steps`	Yes	what the agent should do, in order
`checks`	Yes	the eight checks the script will run
`commands`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`runsWhere`	Yes	always "local": verification executes on the user's machine
`interpreting`	Yes
`methodologyUrl`	Yes
`methodologyVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by clarifying that verification runs entirely locally, uses a dependency-free Node script, performs no server-side computation, and never sends plugin code off the user's machine. It also frames the tool as returning instructions rather than executing verification itself. This directly addresses privacy and execution-model concerns that annotations alone do not cover.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with three purposeful sentences: what the recipe is, how and where verification runs, and when/how to use the tool. The enumeration of the eight checks is dense but directly informs the agent about the tool's scope. No filler exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and the tool has only one optional parameter, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, local-only behavior, recommended invocation context, and the immediate next steps after calling. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema supplies that. The description is sufficiently complete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The single parameter pluginPath is already fully described in the schema, with 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does reinforce that the path points to the plugin directory, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns a recipe for running the Sigistry verification methodology against a plugin before publishing. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/get/list tools by focusing on local verification rather than discovery or retrieval. The title and description align, and the Verified badge context makes the resource and goal unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says to call this when the user wants a plugin or skill checked, which gives clear usage context. It does not enumerate when to prefer sibling tools over this one, but the use case is distinct enough that an agent can select it appropriately. A short note on when not to use it would make this dimension fully explicit.

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

All Sigistry Plugin & Skill Catalog 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.

Resources

Need Help?