Return the signed exposure receipt of your own last cloak_run for a task.
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": {
"task_id": "<task_id>"
},
"name": "exposure_receipt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It reveals ownership scoping ('your own') and that it returns the latest signed receipt, but omits permission requirements, read-only/side-effect guarantees, behavior when no run exists or the receipt expires, and idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a short tool description, though the brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse: it does not explain what the receipt contains, error conditions, or how this differs from verify_receipt. The simplicity of a single required parameter keeps it from being worse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the sole parameter task_id. The phrase 'for a task' connects task_id to a task, but gives no format, source, or relation to the associated cloak_run.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('signed exposure receipt') with clear scope ('your own last cloak_run for a task'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling verify_receipt, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'of your own last cloak_run for a task,' suggesting it is called after a cloak_run. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of verify_receipt, nor what to do if no prior run exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.