Verify a signed receipt's HMAC signature (free).
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": {
"receipt": "<receipt>"
},
"name": "verify_receipt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a small amount of behavioral context by noting the check is free (no cost/rate-limit concern), but it does not say whether this is a read-only validation, what happens with an invalid or malformed receipt, or whether errors are raised or returned.
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; the core action and cost hint appear immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested object parameter, the description should explain the return value (e.g., boolean validity vs. details) and the receipt shape. It leaves both unspecified.
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% and the single parameter is a nested object with no documented fields. The description only implies the parameter accepts a signed receipt, giving no detail on the expected receipt structure or signature format.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: verifies a signed receipt's HMAC signature. It is distinct enough from the sibling names cloak_run and exposure_receipt, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus cloak_run or exposure_receipt, and no stated prerequisites. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical '(free)', which addresses cost rather than usage conditions.
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.