Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Knowledge update check

wever_knowledge-update-check

Read-only

Agent Knowledge: submit how a knowledge base handles corrections and versions, as the path is written, as the corrections made, or both: whether a correction path is written down (how a wrong entry is reported, checked and corrected), who corrects a wrong entry, whether earlier versions of a corrected entry stay reachable and where a correction lands (every place the entry is used, some of them, the entry alone or nowhere); and each correction with its id, the entry found wrong, when it was found wrong and when it was corrected, whether the wrong version stays reachable marked as corrected, and each place the entry is used with whether the correction replaced it there. The signed report gives the path, each correction with the places still using the wrong version, and the uses listed and left stale, and names corrections that do not hold: no written correction path, earlier versions lost, and corrections that land in the entry alone or nowhere or leave places still using the wrong version; then no owner, a path that reaches some places only and corrections with no dates, with the fix for each. How an agent memory store retires a fact a new one contradicts is wever_memory-conflict-check and two versions of one policy text are wever_terms-change-check. Verdict corrections_lost, correction_gaps, corrections_unverified or corrections_hold. POST /api/knowledge-update-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

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": "wever_knowledge-update-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`corrections`	No	Each correction made.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context on top: it reads only the material in the call with no network request, fetch, message or external write; it is a paid endpoint at 0.10 USDC per call via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days; and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof must be bound to the exact JSON arguments and route. It also discloses the return shape (a signed Ed25519 receipt report) and the four verdict values. That is a meaningful behavioral layer beyond the annotations.

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 core description is a single sprawling sentence dense with nested clauses, semicolons and parentheticals, so the reader must re-parse to extract the input contract. Pricing, auth, route and return details are appended after the specification rather than front-loaded. Valuable content, poor packaging.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a nested three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a lot: it explains the report contents, names the verdict enum, states the payment and wallet-proof requirements, and points to the contract and human page. What is missing is guidance on minimum viable input (all parameters are optional, so what happens with an empty call?) and any note on report sizing or limits. Still, an agent could call it correctly from this text.

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 description coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by walking through nearly every field with added meaning: what 'path' captures (written path, owner, versions kept, where a correction lands), and what each correction carries (id, entry, found_at, corrected_at, old_version_kept, uses with per-place update status). It also explains the enum intent for replaces_in ('every place the entry is used, some of them, the entry alone or nowhere') in plain language. The gain over the schema is modest since several phrases mirror the schema descriptions, but the nested structure is made legible.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource: submit how a knowledge base handles corrections and versions, with the 'path' vs 'corrections' halves spelled out. It explicitly names two adjacent checks (wever_memory-conflict-check for contradicting facts, wever_terms-change-check for two versions of a policy text) and thereby distinguishes itself. The clarity is undercut by the run-on enumeration, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It routes the agent away from two named siblings with a condition for each, which is real guidance. However, the most likely confusable siblings in the catalog — wever_knowledge-conflict-check, wever_knowledge-entry-check, wever_knowledge-freshness-check — are not addressed, and there is no explicit 'do not use this when' statement. Usage is implied by the subject matter rather than fully specified.

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?