校验 Ed25519 签名，验证消息是否由该公钥持有者签发。
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": {
"public_key": "<public_key>",
"signature": "<signature>"
},
"name": "id_attest"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| public_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a pure read/non-mutating operation, what it returns on success or failure, or how errors are signaled. For a cryptographic verification primitive with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the core operation with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value (boolean result? exception?) and input format expectations. Neither is present, leaving the agent to guess about the most important outcome of a verification call.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey the roles of the three inputs (message, signature, public key) via 'message signed by the public key holder', which is more than the bare schema offers. However, it omits encoding/format expectations (hex vs base64) and never notes that 'message' is optional while the other two are required.
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 states a specific verb+resource: verify an Ed25519 signature to confirm the message was issued by the holder of that public key. That clearly distinguishes it from the memory/text/web/clock siblings. It falls short of 5 only because the tool name 'id_attest' is opaque and the description never reconciles it with the actual operation.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. that the caller must already have the public key), and no alternatives or exclusions. The agent gets a capability statement but no routing guidance.
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.