inspect_fileReads the C2PA content credential embedded in a file and reports its signer, including whether the file was made with Claude. Nothing is modified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Publicly reachable http(s) URL of an image, video or audio file. Local paths do not work with this hosted server. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description reinforces it with 'Nothing is modified.' It also goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the output behavior, specifically reporting the signer and Claude-made status, which is useful for an agent deciding whether results will satisfy the request.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and result appear in the first sentence, and the safety guarantee is a compact second sentence that earns its place.
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 a single parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is read, what is reported, and that nothing is modified. It does not specify exact return formatting or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the url parameter, including the http(s) format and the local-paths limitation. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but because the schema already carries this burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Reads'), names a distinct resource ('C2PA content credential'), and states the concrete result ('reports its signer, including whether the file was made with Claude'). It is clearly differentiated from the sibling strip_file because reading is the opposite of stripping.
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 the right usage context: inspect a file's embedded credential without modification. However, it does not explicitly mention strip_file as the alternative or state when the agent should prefer one over the other, leaving the choice to inference.
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 clearly distinct purpose: one reads/inspects the C2PA credential, the other removes it. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, and the descriptions reinforce the intended action.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern: inspect_file and strip_file. The naming is consistent, intuitive, and clearly indicates the action performed on the target.
The server has only two tools, which feels thin even for a narrow unmarking purpose. However, the domain itself is simple, so the count is borderline but not unreasonable.
For a server focused on removing C2PA credentials, the inspect and strip operations cover the essential workflow completely. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core actions within this narrowly scoped domain.