Directory Submission Retention Proof

retention_packet

Recovery packet (receipt + diff + preserve-ID checklist) for support.

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": {
      "escrow_id": "<escrow_id>"
    },
    "name": "retention_packet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`escrow_id`	Yes
`published`	No
`tools_list`	No
`registry_listing`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the packet's contents, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether the escrow must exist, permission requirements, or side effects — all critical for a tool that assembles recovery artifacts.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted; but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the key information (what action it performs) is absent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given four parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not compensate for the missing structured metadata needed to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, including three undocumented nested objects (published, tools_list, registry_listing) plus a required escrow_id. The description explains none of them, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning entirely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the deliverable ('recovery packet') and enumerates its components (receipt + diff + preserve-ID checklist), which gives an agent a rough idea of what comes back. However, it never states the action (generate/assemble/fetch) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like retention_diff or retention_escrow, so the purpose is only implied.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

'for support' hints at a use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling tools (retention_diff, retention_escrow) that an agent must choose between.

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

All Directory Submission Retention Proof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?