aziel-runtime

Verify a registry name or digest

fraggate_verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirm a name, slug, or 64-hex engine_digest against the hashed FragGate registry — a proof, not a card listing. Use this when you must prove a listed name or digest exists after fraggate_describe. Do not use it for listing the registry, describing ops, or executing; use fraggate_list, fraggate_describe, or fraggate_call instead. Not an exec path and not a describe card. Empty {} (no name, slug, or digest) refuses FG-HALLUC-TOOL. Digest without name/slug compares the whole registry hash (kind=registry). Name or slug with an optional digest compares that entry (kind=entry); unknown names refuse FG-HALLUC-TOOL. Mismatch returns ok=false with matched=false — it does not invent a digest. Send digest alone to proof the live registry_digest. Send name or slug (one is enough) to proof one card. Combined name+digest must equal that card's engine_digest. Returns match or mismatch (kind registry|entry, matched, registry_digest).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional registry display name (for example FoldLock, EmbryoLock, AZHub). Use name or slug — one is enough. Combined name/op forms such as foldlock/fold-preview are accepted by the door parser. Unknown names refuse FG-HALLUC-TOOL.
`slug`	No	Optional catalog slug (lowercase a-z0-9-, for example foldlock, embryolock, azhub). Alternative to name. Prefer the slug returned by fraggate_list or GET /v1/software.
`digest`	No	Optional 64-char lowercase hex engine_digest or registry digest to verify. When digest is set without name/slug, the tool compares the live registry digest.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	FragGate or fabric code when present: FG-OK, FG-HALLUC-TOOL, FG-STUB, FG-LOCAL-ONLY, FG-UNKNOWN-OP, FG-GATE-REFUSE, FG-LAMB-REFUSE, or a module refuse such as MESH-* / AKM-*.
`door`	No	Door name. The public door is fraggate.
`ran_in`	No	Execution locale (for example aziel-runtime) when present.
`result`	No	FragGate body: ok, code, door, slug, op, engine_digest, ran_in, provenance, refusal, limitations, receipt, plus the engine result. Unknown names refuse FG-HALLUC-TOOL; stubs refuse FG-STUB.
`status`	No	HTTP-like status when present on wrappers (200 ok; 400+ error / refuse).
`display`	No	Human-facing envelope. Show title and summary, then take the next input.
`receipt`	No	Optional receipt, ledger tip, or TemporalLock/ForgeReceipts exit when the door stamped one.
`refusal`	No	Explicit refuse object, code, or message when the door or engine refused.
`engine_op`	No	Resolved engine op when present (often inside result).
`ledger_tip`	No	Ask/refuse ledger tip when the door stamped one.
`provenance`	No	Provenance / input packet when the pipeline attached one.
`session_id`	No	Raw session id when session plumbing was used. Hidden unless the user asked for the chain.
`engine_slug`	No	Resolved engine slug when present (often inside result).
`limitations`	No	Capability limitations or Remain-OFF notes when present.
`engine_digest`	No	64-hex engine_digest when a true in-process engine ran (often inside result).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: empty {} refuses FG-HALLUC-TOOL, unknown names refuse, digest-only compares the whole registry hash (kind=registry), name/slug compares that entry (kind=entry), and mismatch returns ok=false with matched=false rather than inventing a digest.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior, and most sentences earn their place. Slightly repetitive: 'Not an exec path and not a describe card' restates the earlier exclusions, and the closing return-value sentence duplicates a present output schema.

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?

Complete for a zero-required-param verification tool with an output schema: it covers refusal behavior, the two comparison modes, and match/mismatch outcomes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds combination semantics the schema does not fully state: name or slug alone is enough, name+digest must equal that card's engine_digest, and the digest pattern is 64-hex. This is meaningful Fn semantics beyond the field docs.

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?

States a specific verb (Confirm/verify) and resource (name, slug, or 64-hex engine_digest against the FragGate registry), and immediately frames it as 'a proof, not a card listing', which separates it from the sibling describe/list tools. An agent can distinguish it from fraggate_list, fraggate_describe, and fraggate_call without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you must prove a listed name or digest exists after fraggate_describe') and when not to ('Do not use it for listing the registry, describing ops, or executing'), naming the three alternatives. Routing conditions for digest-only vs name/slug are also spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All aziel-runtime 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?