Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Data retention check

wever_data-retention-check

Read-only

DiligenceOps: submit a data retention and deletion policy. The signed report lists each data class the policy names (account data, payment records, logs, backups, communications, analytics and more) with its retention period, a period stated only as "as long as necessary", or none, and marks the deletion method, the deletion timeline after a request and stated exceptions present, missing or ambiguous, with quotes. POST /api/data-retention-check. Reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact and no money movement. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. The report matches words, figures, dates and named items between the submitted texts; it does not interpret meaning beyond that matching. Contract: /api/diligence-disclosure-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/diligence-checks/.

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": {
      "policy": "<policy>"
    },
    "name": "wever_data-retention-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name for the policy, recorded in the report.
`format`	No	html reduces the markup to readable text first. Defaults to html when the text starts with a tag, otherwise text.
`policy`	Yes	The data retention and deletion policy, or the retention section of a privacy policy, up to 256 KB.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses the payment model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt. It also bounds the analysis honestly: the report matches words, figures, dates and named items and does not interpret meaning beyond that matching.

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?

Purpose and output shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the operational facts (endpoint, payment, proof binding, receipt) follow in a compact block. The middle sentence is a long run-on enumeration of data classes and report fields, which costs some readability but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the report contents, the signed receipt, and the matching-only limitation. Combined with the payment, auth-proof and endpoint details, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so label, format and policy are already documented in the schema, including the html/text default heuristic. The description adds only the 256 KB framing implicitly and the notion of 'submitted texts', so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema meaningfully — baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('submit a data retention and deletion policy') and then enumerates exactly what the resulting report contains: data classes, retention periods, deletion method, timeline and exceptions, each marked present/missing/ambiguous with quotes. That level of output specificity lets an agent distinguish this from the many sibling evidence-check tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scope statement ('Reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact and no money movement'), which tells the agent this is a pure text-submission check rather than a live-fetch check. However, no sibling is named as an alternative, and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to near-neighbours like wever_privacy-evidence-check or wever_data-evidence-check.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails 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?