FREE. Verify a Guild-issued machine envelope and its expiry.
No key, payment or network trust is required. A valid result means exact integrity, Guild provenance and authenticated sender at issuance — not that the committed message is true or that its recipient accepted it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It excellently explains the semantic limits: 'A valid result means exact integrity, Guild provenance and authenticated sender at issuance — not that the committed message is true or that its recipient accepted it.' It also states the free/no-trust nature, giving a clear behavioral profile 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE,' and every sentence adds substantive meaning. No filler or repetition; it efficiently conveys purpose, prerequisites, and limitations.
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?
The description thoroughly covers the verification semantics and limitations, but it fails to describe the envelope parameter entirely. Given the parameter is a complex nested object, this is a clear gap. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required, but input construction guidance is missing. Overall, it's minimally adequate but incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 schema has one parameter ('envelope') as an object with additionalProperties true, but the description provides zero detail about its structure or usage. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The agent can verify the tool but has no guidance on how to construct or understand the envelope parameter, making this a major gap.
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 function: 'Verify a Guild-issued machine envelope and its expiry.' It uses a specific verb ('verify') and a distinct resource ('Guild-issued machine envelope'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like guild_verify or guild_prove_verify by focusing on the 'machine envelope' concept.
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 provides strong usage context: it's free, requires no key/payment/network trust, and explicitly defines what a valid result does and does not mean. This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool (when free, trustless verification is needed) and when not to (when verifying message truth or recipient acceptance). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it falls just 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.
Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.
The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.
39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.
The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.