Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Spec drift check

wever_spec-drift-check

Read-only

Agent Oversight: submit spec statements and notes on what the implementation does (each with optional id, subject key and where). The signed report names every point where behavior conflicts with the spec, each classified by consequence (money-moving first, then state-changing, then cosmetic) with the conflicting figures or wording, the statements no note addresses or whose figures do not compare, and behavior the spec does not mention. Use it to report a conflict as a finding before shipping. Verdict money_moving_conflict, state_changing_conflict, cosmetic_conflict, unresolved or consistent. POST /api/spec-drift-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-oversight-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-oversight/.

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": {
      "spec": "<spec>",
      "behavior": "<behavior>"
    },
    "name": "wever_spec-drift-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`spec`	Yes	Spec statements.
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`behavior`	Yes	Implementation behavior notes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses that nothing leaves the call (no fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write), the verdict taxonomy, the ordering of findings by consequence, and the signed-receipt output. It also states the cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days) and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, which an agent needs to construct a successful call.

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 is front-loaded and the middle section on report contents is dense but earns its space. The trailing contract and human-page URLs plus the payment paragraph add bulk that is useful but not about selecting the tool, slightly diluting the core.

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 it: every conflicting point, its consequence class, the conflicting figures or wording, unaddressed statements, and behavior the spec omits, plus the five-value verdict. Combined with the payment and auth details, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 adds genuine meaning: it explains that 'subject' pairs spec statements with behavior notes across the two arrays, that ids and 'where' are optional, and that findings are classified by consequence in money-moving, state-changing, cosmetic order — a semantic the bare enum in the schema does not convey.

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 verb and resource: submit spec statements plus implementation behavior notes, and receive a signed report of where behavior conflicts with the spec. That is unmistakably distinct from sibling checks like api-change-check, changelog-check or contract-diff-check, though it never names an alternative tool to route against.

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 a clear usage moment: 'Use it to report a conflict as a finding before shipping.' That is a concrete pre-ship decision context. It stops short of explicit exclusions (when not to use it, or which sibling handles adjacent questions like API surface changes).

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?