Verify an HMAC-signed substitution receipt.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "formulary_verify_receipt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | No |
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. 'Verify' implies a read-only cryptographic check, but the description doesn't say what a failed verification does (error vs. negative result), whether a server-side HMAC key must be configured, or what output the check yields.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being concise about genuinely simple behavior.
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 parameter, the description should explain the verification result and how failures surface. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot confidently predict the outcome of a call.
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?
The single 'receipt' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only restates that it is an HMAC-signed receipt. It gives no format or encoding detail (raw string, base64, compact token with separators), leaving the agent to guess what to pass.
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 (verify) and a specific resource (HMAC-signed substitution receipt), which no sibling tool name implies. It is distinguishable from formulary_dispense or formulary_report_failure, though it doesn't explicitly say how it relates to 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 call this versus the siblings, no preconditions, and no indication of whether it is meant to be called after formulary_dispense produces a receipt. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.
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.