Cortex

Listverificationsforentity

listVerificationsForEntity

List the verifications for a single entity, one entry per verification period the entity is in scope for, including periods it has not been verified for yet. Use this to check whether one service, resource, or domain is up to date on its verifications.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	Yes	Page number to return, 0-indexed. Default 0.
`context`	Yes	Explain why you're invoking this tool now and how its output will be used. Then state how this call supports your overall objective and fits into your broader plan across all tool calls (e.g., why this tool vs. others, and what step it unblocks). Never share any personal details or sensitive information.
`tagOrId`	Yes	Entity identifier - can be a tag or CID
`isActive`	No	Return only verifications whose period is open today (true) or only those whose period is not (false). Omit for all periods.
`pageSize`	Yes	Number of results to return per page, between 1 and 1000. Default 250.
`session_id`	Yes	Session continuity handle, one of two values: the ses_ ID issued for the task underway, or start. This server cannot link your calls between requests on its own, so session continuity travels in this parameter instead. If you were handed a session_id for this task — for example by the agent that spawned you — send that exact value from your first call. Otherwise send start on your first call; the server will issue an opaque correlation ID in the mcp_session field of the result, or in a text block at the start of the result beginning [session_id issued. Then send that exact ses_ value on every later call and hand it to any subagents working the same task. start always begins a new, unrelated task — never send it mid-task. If you send a value this server does not recognize, the result reports it: mcp_session.status of unrecognized, or a text block beginning [session_id unrecognized; re-send the ID issued for this task, or start if none was issued yet. Never invent a ses_ value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: results include entries for verification periods the entity has not yet been verified for, and each period gets its own row. It does not describe ordering, error behavior, or auth requirements, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core listing behavior and use case are front-loaded, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The parameter schema fully covers inputs, and the description clarifies the result semantics well enough for a simple listing tool. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not describe ordering or how unverified periods are represented, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters and their defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list verifications for a single entity, and further clarifies the output shape as one entry per verification period, including periods not yet verified. It distinguishes itself from broader siblings like listVerifications by emphasizing 'single entity' and a per-period scope.

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?

The second sentence gives a concrete use case: checking whether one service, resource, or domain is up to date on verifications. It clearly implies single-entity scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

All Cortex tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?