Evidence-granularity audit

query_verdict

Precomputed signed verdict for a listing ($0.01). Args: listing_id, optional operator_registration_count + shared_line_hashes for witness-expiry checking.

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": {
      "listing_id": "<listing_id>"
    },
    "name": "query_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listing_id`	Yes
`shared_line_hashes`	No
`operator_registration_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.01 cost and that the verdict is precomputed and signed, but omits permissions, side effects, failure modes, and return shape.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence plus a compact Args list, with no redundant text. Its terseness borders on under-specification, but the conciseness dimension rewards this efficiency.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves return values, error behavior, and auth or permission context unaddressed; the cost and parameter hints help but do not close the gap.

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 0%, and the description names all three parameters while marking two as optional. It adds that operator_registration_count and shared_line_hashes are for witness-expiry checking, but gives no format or detailed semantics, especially for listing_id.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the resource and output ('precomputed signed verdict for a listing') and includes a cost, so the agent can tell it fetches a verdict. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling verify_verdict, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer usage from the $0.01 cost and the optional witness-expiry arguments. Sibling tools are not mentioned as alternatives.

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

All Evidence-granularity audit 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?