get_proof
Retrieve an existing proof bundle by ID. Returns the decision, violations, packs, and verification status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundleId | Yes | The proof bundle ID (kpb_...) |
Korext: AI Code Governance
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via "Retrieve" and discloses the return contents (decision, violations, packs, verification status). It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a get operation this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the action, and lists the return contents efficiently. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description clearly states the input and the components of the result. It could have mentioned behavior when the ID is not found or explicitly stated it does not modify data, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for bundleId ("The proof bundle ID (kpb_...)"). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource ("proof bundle by ID"), clearly distinguishing from siblings like generate_proof (creation) and list_packs (listing). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an existing bundle ID is available and a fetch is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The contrast with generate_proof is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: check_code returns violations, generate_proof creates a signed bundle, get_directives retrieves rules, get_proof fetches a bundle, and list_packs enumerates packs. The only potential ambiguity is between check_code and generate_proof, both scan code against policies, but they produce different outputs (raw violations vs. proof bundle), making them distinguishable.
Naming Consistency5/5
All five tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_code, generate_proof, get_directives, get_proof, list_packs). The verbs are action-oriented and the nouns clearly indicate the resource or output, with no mixed conventions or vague naming.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for a code governance server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect: checking, proof generation, policy retrieval, proof retrieval, and pack listing. This covers the core workflows without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the primary governance operations: checking code, generating and retrieving proofs, and accessing policy directives and pack listings. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct method to view a single policy pack's full details or manage packs, but the core enforcement and proof lifecycle is complete.