Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Knowledge coverage check

wever_knowledge-coverage-check

Read-only

Agent Knowledge: submit a knowledge scope statement with the entries behind it: each topic the agent claims to cover, with the other names entries use for it, and each knowledge entry with its id, the topics it covers and optionally its claim. The signed report counts the entries behind every claimed topic, matching topic names and their aliases without case, spacing or punctuation, gives each topic as covered, resting on a single entry or empty, counts the entries inside the claim, partly outside it, outside it and naming no topic, lists the topics entries name outside the claim with the entries that name them, and names the gaps between what the agent claims to know and what it holds: claimed topics with no entries at all; then claimed topics resting on a single entry and entries that cover topics outside the claimed scope, with the fix for each. Entries that name no topic count toward none and are named as open points. A name shared by two scope topics is refused before any charge. The tasks a delegate may do are wever_delegation-scope-check, what an agent memory may hold is wever_memory-scope-check and whether every action an agent takes is traced is wever_observability-coverage-check. Verdict topics_uncovered, topic_gaps, topics_unverified or topics_covered. POST /api/knowledge-coverage-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. 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. Contract: /api/agent-knowledge-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-knowledge/.

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": {
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "entries": "<entries>"
    },
    "name": "wever_knowledge-coverage-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`scope`	Yes	Each topic in the scope statement.
`entries`	Yes	Each knowledge entry with its topics.

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 readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that the tool performs no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, and it states the cost model (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days). It also specifies the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, the Ed25519 signed receipt, and that a duplicate scope name is refused before any charge — meaningful given idempotentHint=false on a paid call.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is largely substantive — nearly every clause describes a distinct part of the report — but it is delivered as one dense paragraph with the purpose, verdicts, payment and contract links all interleaved. Front-loading is weak: the opening sentence describes inputs rather than what the check decides, so an agent must read several clauses before grasping the core purpose.

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?

For a paid analytical tool with no output schema, the description carries the full burden well: it enumerates the report's counts, the gap categories and the fixes, the four verdict values, the refusal condition, the payment and authentication mechanics, and links to the contract and human page. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the schema defines the three parameters, but the description adds real interpretive meaning: aliases are matched without regard to case, spacing or punctuation; entries that name no topic count toward none and are surfaced as open points; the optional claim defines inside/partly-outside/outside counting. That goes beyond field-level docs, though it does not clarify limits or edge behavior for the 200-topic / 1000-entry bounds.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific operation — submitting a scope statement plus entries and receiving a signed coverage report — and spells out what the report computes (entries per claimed topic, alias-insensitive matching, gap classification, verdicts). It also disambiguates from three adjacent check tools (delegation, memory, observability), though the actual purpose is buried after a sentence that only describes the inputs. An agent can identify the resource and outcome, just not from the first line.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for what the tool is for and routes three neighboring concerns to their own tools (wever_delegation-scope-check, wever_memory-scope-check, wever_observability-coverage-check). What it does not do is state when to prefer this over the other knowledge-* siblings that appear in the catalog, so selection among closely related checks is left partly to inference.

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?