Tool-Call Origin Attestation

attestation_check

Attestation check {execution, attestation} — $0.01 x402 / bundle / fleet included (same billing as HTTP)

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": {
      "execution": "<execution>"
    },
    "name": "attestation_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`execution`	Yes
`attestation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only describes billing. It does not state what the check validates, whether it is read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Important context is missing, and the billing parenthetical takes space that could have been used to explain the operation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given nested object parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine what the tool does or how to invoke it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and two parameters, one of which is a required nested object. The description merely echoes the parameter names '{execution, attestation}' without explaining their meaning, expected structure, or role.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool name as 'Attestation check' and lists parameter names in braces, but never explains what an attestation check actually does or how it differs from siblings like probe or verdict_lookup. It is near-tautological rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

It mentions billing options ('$0.01 x402 / bundle / fleet included') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is the alternative. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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

All Tool-Call Origin Attestation 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?