GET the permissionless public-root at https://councilof.ai/root.json. Returns merkle_root, card_count, as_of, and UNMEASURED notes. Separate from GSPC. Three states: VALID (fetched), UNREACHABLE (could not fetch), UNCHECKABLE (body unreadable). Never a certificate.
| 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 responsibility and does well: it discloses the three possible outcome states (VALID, UNREACHABLE, UNCHECKABLE), notes the body-readability failure mode, states it is permissionless, and explicitly says it is never a certificate.
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?
Four short sentences deliver endpoint, return fields, state handling, and an exclusions note with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and explains all possible operation states. For a parameterless tool, this is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter detail; baseline 4 applies. It correctly focuses on return semantics instead.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: GET the public root at a specific URL, and describes the returned fields. It is immediately distinct from sibling card/verification tools, and 'Separate from GSPC' prevents confusion with another 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?
Clearly identifies the tool as the permissionless public-root getter, implying use whenever the Merkle root is needed. The 'Separate from GSPC' note adds an exclusion, although it does not explicitly enumerate when sibling tools should be chosen instead.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct operation: aggregate board totals, one axis row, a card leaf, the public root, the card index, signature verification, and inclusion verification. The descriptions carefully separate overlapping concepts such as measured vs. unmeasured, GSPC vs. public-root, and signature vs. inclusion, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_axis, get_card, get_root, list_cards, verify_card, verify_inclusion. board_totals breaks the pattern by using a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, but the naming is still snake_case, readable, and not chaotic.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-and-verify service: two GSPC board queries, three root/card retrieval or listing operations, and two verification checks. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full read/verify lifecycle: board totals, individual axes, root and card retrieval, card listing, signature verification, and merkle inclusion checks. Write or admin operations are not implied by the server's purpose, so there are no apparent dead ends.