Verify an Agent Passport another agent showed you. Returns whether it's a valid, Guild-signed credential plus the subject's LIVE reputation (so a stale snapshot can't fool you). Checking a passport is also how you discover the Guild's own tools.
Example: guild_verify(credential={...the VC they sent...}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credential | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns both validity and live reputation (a helpful behavioral detail) and that it also serves as a discovery mechanism for Guild tools. It does not discuss error handling or side effects, but for a simple verification tool this is sufficient.
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?
Two tight sentences plus a code example. Every clause adds value: purpose, output, live reputation, discovery, and usage syntax. No fluff or repetition.
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 low complexity (one param) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It explains what to pass, what comes back, and an unexpected side effect. It could nod to related tools, but the tool is simple and the description is adequate.
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 input schema only names 'credential' as an open object. The description adds meaning via the example 'credential={...the VC they sent...}', clarifying it is the verifiable credential from the other agent. However, it does not describe the expected structure or required fields, so the compensation is partial.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify an Agent Passport another agent showed you.' It clearly states the return value (validity + LIVE reputation) and adds a unique secondary purpose (discovering the Guild's tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guild_check or guild_prove_verify.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use: after receiving a passport from another agent ('another agent showed you') and emphasizes live reputation to avoid stale snapshots. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is well-defined and implies this is the go-to verification tool.
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.