proofrelay.build_human_approval_receiptBuild an unsigned, hash-only human approval receipt draft for authority, policy, and subject evidence. The tool does not create approval authority or certify the approver's identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approval | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the receipt is unsigned and hash-only, and explicitly states it does not create authority or certify identity, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotations.
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 concise with two informative sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a clarifying limitation without waste.
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?
For a tool with a nested approval object and output schema, the description covers the purpose and limitations but does not explain how to structure the approval parameter or what the output contains. It is somewhat incomplete for a complex tool, but adequate given the output schema exists.
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?
The description gives a high-level hint that the approval object contains authority, policy, and subject evidence, but does not explain the specific fields or their semantics. With 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but lacks detail on the approval object structure.
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 tool builds an unsigned, hash-only human approval receipt draft, specifying the resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it does not create approval authority or certify identity.
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 gives clear context that this tool only drafts an unsigned receipt and does not create approval authority or certify identity, providing negative use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or positive when-to-use scenarios.
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.
All 26 tools have distinct names that clearly indicate their purpose (e.g., adapt_agent_identity_evidence vs. build_audit_pack_manifest). No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous functions, even though some share similar verbs; the nouns and description contexts differentiate them effectively.
The tool names follow a uniform convention: all start with 'proofrelay.' and use lowercase verb_noun with underscores (e.g., proofrelay.build_bundle_draft, proofrelay.verify_signed_attestation). There is no mixing of camelCase, across the entire set.
The server exposes 26 tools, which exceeds the 'borderline' range of 16–25 and falls into the 'too many' category (>25). While the tools cover a broad domain (evidence verification, risk scanning, etc.), the large number might overwhelm agents and suggests that some tools could be merged or the scope narrowed.
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of operations—adapting, building, verifying, scanning, recommending, and summarizing—across multiple subdomains (identity, payment, audit, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for updating or deleting evidence, but overall the surface appears very complete for the described functionality.