CWI Discovery Engine

Verify Brief Candidates

verify_brief_candidates

Read-onlyIdempotent

NEW WORK — built 2026-10-27 for the Meta Global AI Developer Hackathon. Deterministic verified-brief gate: takes candidate tracks proposed by a caller (for example Muse Spark reasoning supplied by the caller) and returns the gate decision for each against the worker sync catalog data (sync-catalog-data.js, 29 tracks, 27 verified ISRCs). PASS only for a catalog match with a verified ISRC. FLAG for a catalog match without a verified ISRC. DROP for no catalog match (invented or outside the catalog). This tool makes NO Meta API call and holds no Meta key — Spark reasoning is supplied by the caller, the gate is the tool. A match is NOT a license — clearance is direct by Cumulative Web Inc, hp@cumulativeweb.com, one-signature, BMI.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "candidates": "<candidates>"
    },
    "name": "verify_brief_candidates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`candidates`	Yes	Proposed candidates, up to 50: each {title, artist}. Title matching is case-insensitive and punctuation-insensitive; the artist is echoed, not used for matching.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rule`	No
`tool`	Yes
`built`	No	Build date of this new tool: 2026-10-27 (Meta hackathon new work).
`counts`	Yes
`_session`	No	Chain session: pass _session.session_token back in the next call to continue the chain.
`try_next`	No	Suggested follow-up calls, each a pre-compiled {tool, arguments, purpose} payload.
`decisions`	Yes
`gate_source`	No
`generated_at`	No
`clearance_note`	Yes
`tracks_on_file`	No
`verified_on_file`	No
`verified_shortlist`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: declares deterministic behavior, no Meta API call, no Meta key held, the matching rules, and the crucial caveat that a catalog match is not a license. That license/permission context is exactly what an agent needs before acting on a PASS.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core gate semantics are front-loaded well, but the 'NEW WORK — built 2026-10-27 for the Meta Global AI Developer Hackathon' preamble and the licensing contact block (email, BMI, one-signature) consume space that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, yet the description still fully specifies the decision vocabulary and its conditions, plus the no-key/no-API constraint and license caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents title/artist, case-insensitivity, artist being echoed not matched, and the 50-item cap. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (verifies) and resource (candidate brief tracks) and precisely enumerates the three outcomes PASS/FLAG/DROP with their conditions. An agent can distinguish this gate from search_catalog or sync_search without reading the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the caller supplies candidate tracks (e.g., Spark reasoning) and that this tool only renders a gate decision, which clearly frames the input contract and when to reach for it. It stops short of naming sibling tools (e.g., get_sync_catalog) as the alternative for lookup-only needs, so it isn't a full when/when-not statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CWI Discovery Engine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.