Verify an AI agent by its DID.
Checks whether the DID is registered and returns verification status
along with the agent's trust card (reputation, credentials, blockchain anchor).
Args:
did: Decentralised identifier (e.g. "did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f60718")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (verification status, trust card with reputation, credentials, blockchain anchor) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention any side effects, error behavior for unregistered DIDs, or prerequisites. The existence of an output schema partially covers return format, but behavioral traits beyond that are limited.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a two-sentence elaboration, and a single argument definition. Every sentence earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and how to supply the argument. The only notable gap is guidance on differentiating from other verify tools or handling unregistered DIDs, but given the simplicity, it is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 input schema provides only a bare 'did' property with no description (schema coverage 0%). The tool description compensates by including an Args section that defines the DID as a 'Decentralised identifier' and gives a concrete example ('did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f60718'). This adds meaningful format and usage context that the schema alone lacks.
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 AI agent by its DID.' It then states precisely what it does (checks registration) and what it returns (verification status and trust card details). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like moltproof_verify or mt_shopping_verify, which target different domains.
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 implies usage when you have a DID and want to verify an agent's registration and trust card, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For instance, it does not mention that verification of specific credentials might require other tools like moltrust_credential. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.
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.