proofrelay.issue_conformance_badgeBuild an unsigned ProofRelay evidence-conformance badge draft such as PREP-compatible, Verified Bundle, Verified MCP, or Replay Tested. This is not legal, security, model-safety, or platform certification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| badge | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by clarifying the badge is 'unsigned' and not a certification, which is important behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a useful disclaimer. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.
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 complex nested schema (1 param with 10 subfields) and no output schema details, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain what the draft badge contains, how hashes are computed, or what the output looks like. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input semantics are under-specified.
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%, but the description names the badge types and mentions 'unsigned' and 'draft', which adds some meaning. However, it doesn't explain the required fields (subject_hash, criteria_hash) or optional fields like profile, issued_at, expires_at. The nested object structure is complex, and the description doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 ProofRelay evidence-conformance badge draft and lists specific badge types (PREP-compatible, Verified Bundle, Verified MCP, Replay Tested). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'draft' and 'unsigned' badges, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with build_bundle_draft or build_registry_entry.
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 usage for creating badge drafts but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It mentions what it is not (legal, security, model-safety, platform certification), which adds some context, but no direct comparison to sibling tools like build_bundle_draft or verify_bundle.
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.