proofrelay.describe_cli_sdk_helperReturn public-safe setup guidance for connecting MCP clients to ProofRelay and preparing hash-only evidence inputs without exposing secrets or requiring package installation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| helper | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context by mentioning 'public-safe', 'without exposing secrets', and 'without requiring package installation', which are not captured by the annotations. This provides additional behavioral transparency about the output's constraints and safety.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Return public-safe setup guidance') and quickly conveys the scope and constraints. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no complex behavior), the description covers the essential purpose and key constraints. The annotations provide safety guarantees, and the output schema (if present) would handle return format specifics. The description is complete for an informational tool, though it could mention the parameter structure explicitly.
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%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for the 'helper' object or its properties. The description does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it explain what 'client' or 'endpoint' mean. While the purpose gives some implicit clues, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics underspecified.
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's purpose: it returns setup guidance for connecting MCP clients to ProofRelay and preparing hash-only evidence inputs. The verb 'Return' specifies the output, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings that focus on building, verifying, or adapting evidence, making it a unique informational tool.
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 its usage context—when an agent needs setup guidance for connecting clients or preparing evidence inputs—and contrasts with the mutating/adapting tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.