proofrelay.map_openapi_operation_evidenceMap public OpenAPI operation metadata and schema hashes into a ProofRelay event plan with checkpoint recommendations for paid, mutating, or relied-upon API operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | 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, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by framing the tool as mapping metadata rather than invoking operations, and by highlighting paid, mutating, or relied-upon operations. It does not contradict annotations and provides enough behavioral context beyond the structured hints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the input, and the output efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 has one nested parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides sufficient context for a mapping tool. It would benefit from explicit when-to-use guidance and a bit more parameter detail, but overall it is adequately complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds high-level meaning by referencing 'schema hashes' and 'paid, mutating, or relied-upon' categories, which align with fields like payment_required, idempotency_required, and method. However, it does not explain individual nested fields such as operation_id, path_template, server_url_hash, or security_scheme_refs.
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 ('Map') with a clear object ('public OpenAPI operation metadata and schema hashes') and a distinct output ('ProofRelay event plan with checkpoint recommendations'). It differentiates from siblings like wrap_mcp_tool_evidence by naming the OpenAPI source and the event-plan output.
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 when public OpenAPI operation metadata is available and checkpoint recommendations are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like map_lender_condition_evidence or wrap_mcp_tool_evidence. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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.