get_archiveFetch the manifest for a previous archive_url capture: when it was taken, and its proof. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | the capture hash returned by archive_url |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a manifest and that it is 'Free,' but does not detail side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence plus one word ('Free.')—and front-loads key information. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains the purpose and parameter. It could add detail about the manifest format, but is sufficient for the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema's own description of the 'hash' parameter, merely reinforcing that it comes from a previous capture.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch the manifest') and the resource ('previous archive_url capture'), and specifies what it includes ('when it was taken, and its proof'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_url, which creates captures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after archive_url by referencing 'previous archive_url capture,' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: capturing pages, anchoring hashes individually or in batches, fetching and verifying, and checking system status. There is no overlap or confusion between tools.
All tool names use snake_case with descriptive verbs and nouns (e.g., archive_url, notarize_hash, verify_hash), following a consistent and predictable pattern.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a notarization and archiving service, covering core operations without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of timestamping and verification: single hash notarization, batch anchoring, web page capture, verifiable fetch, lookup by hash, and service status. No obvious gaps remain.