Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Migration report check

wever_migration-report-check

Read-only

Agent Migration: submit the migration report written for the principal, with the record behind it: its title, its audience, its headline as written and optionally its text; whether it states what the move lost, the fields dropped in the mapping, the fields whose meaning changed (units, currencies or status values) and the areas not verified against the source, where each sits (beside the headline, in a later section, in an appendix or in a separate document) and how many it names; and optionally the record of each, as found by the scope, export, mapping, loss and verification records. The signed report gives the headline with any complete or lossless wording, the disclosure of each kind of finding and the record, and names a move smoothed into migration complete: losses, dropped fields, meaning changes or unverified areas left out or stated as none while the record holds some; then counts below the record’s, disclosures in an appendix or a separate document, and wording such as migration complete, seamless or nothing lost while the record holds findings, with the fix for each. The export section of a handover package is wever_handover-check, and whether a reputation record survives a platform change in principle is wever_reputation-portability-check. Verdict migration_smoothed_over, migration_disclosure_gaps, migration_disclosure_unverified or migration_disclosed. POST /api/migration-report-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, and no data is moved. 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-migration-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-migration/.

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": {
      "report": "<report>"
    },
    "name": "wever_migration-report-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`losses`	No
`record`	No
`report`	Yes
`unverified`	No
`dropped_fields`	No
`meaning_changes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it declares that no external write, network fetch, money movement, message, sharing or data move occurs, and it discloses the paid 0.10 USDC x402 call, free-call allowance, wallet-proof binding and signed receipt. It does not discuss idempotency, despite the idempotentHint=false annotation, and the phrase 'no network request' is slightly confusing for an HTTP POST endpoint, but there is no contradiction.

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 first sentence is an enormous run-on covering nearly all inputs, and the later sentence describing the signed report's verdict logic is difficult to parse and repetitive. The content is largely relevant, but it is not front-loaded or structured for easy agent consumption.

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 complex tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers the core inputs, return verdicts, signed receipt, read-only behavior, pricing and wallet authentication. The remaining gaps are the unmentioned label parameter and the lack of idempotency guidance, but the overall context is largely complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 14%, the description carries much of the semantic load: it explains the report's title, audience, headline and optional text, the four finding categories (losses, dropped fields, meaning changes, unverified areas), and their stated/placement/count semantics, plus the optional underlying record. It omits the optional label parameter and does not map the record subfields precisely, but it adds meaningful explanation beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action: submit a migration report with underlying records and receive a signed verdict. It also explicitly distinguishes two siblings, wever_handover-check and wever_reputation-portability-check, though it does not clarify its boundary against the many other migration-* checks.

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 two specific cases to sibling tools (handover export and reputation portability), which is useful. However, it gives no general when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not state prerequisites such as whether the record object should be supplied only when available.

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?