Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Migration verify check

wever_migration-verify-check

Read-only

Agent Migration: submit the verification run after one move: each check with its kind (a record count, a sampled record, a balance, a field meaning spot-check, a field presence check, the target loads, a smoke test or other), what it covers, the mapped field it reads, the value on the source and on the target, whether they matched and when it ran; optionally what moved, the mapped fields, and when the source data was deleted. The signed report lists every check as a matched, mismatched or unstated comparison, a comparison run after deletion, or not a comparison at all, gives the items and mapped fields with the comparisons covering them and the timing against the deletion, and names a move left unchecked: verification that amounts to the target loads with nothing compared against the source, comparisons run after the source was already deleted, and comparisons that found the target differs; then moved items no comparison covers and mapped fields checked only for presence, never for meaning, with the fix for each. Counts and balances compare by their values; samples and meaning spot-checks state whether they matched. What a receiver could run on day one of a handover is wever_handover-check, and whether a supplied rollback was rehearsed is wever_rollback-path-check. Verdict post_move_unchecked, post_move_gaps, post_move_unverified or post_move_verified. POST /api/migration-verify-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": {
      "checks": "<checks>"
    },
    "name": "wever_migration-verify-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No	What moved, to read for items no comparison covers.
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`checks`	Yes	Each verification run after the move.
`mapped_fields`	No	The mapped fields, to read for fields never spot-checked for meaning.
`source_deleted_at`	No	When the source data was deleted, if it was.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call performs no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change, or external write and moves no data, which directly reinforces readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It further adds the paid access model (0.10 USDC via x402 exact on Base, 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt — none of which the annotations convey.

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 purpose and verdicts are front-loaded and much of the content earns its place (alternatives, cost, auth, receipt). However, the report-description is a long comma-spliced run-on ('...names a move left unchecked: verification that amounts to...') that is hard to parse in one pass, and the check enumerations repeat what the enum already lists.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema submission tool, the definition covers the input semantics, the report's contents, the four possible verdicts, the side-effect profile, the authentication/payment requirements, and where the contract lives. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how check kinds behave: counts and balances compare by value while samples and meaning spot-checks state whether they matched. It also clarifies the role of the optional inputs (items drive uncovered-item detection, mapped_fields drive never-spot-checked detection, source_deleted_at drives deletion timing), which the schema only labels.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: 'submit the verification run after one move', then enumerates exactly what a check carries (kind, coverage, mapped field, source/target values, match, timing). It also explicitly separates itself from siblings ('What a receiver could run on day one of a handover is wever_handover-check, and whether a supplied rollback was rehearsed is wever_rollback-path-check'), so an agent can distinguish it 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context of use ('after one move') and names two alternative tools with the conditions that select them (handover readiness, rollback rehearsal). It does not compare against the closer migration siblings such as cutover, loss, or mapping checks, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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?