Get full provenance details for a music credential.
Returns the complete VerifiedMusicCredential including track
metadata, provenance hash, EU AI Act compliance status,
and on-chain anchor information.
Args:
credential_id: UUID of the music credential
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credential_id | 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 provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it mention authentication, error conditions, rate limits, or any side effects. The description lists returned fields but omits behavioral nuances beyond a simple retrieval.
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 concise, front-loading the purpose and then summarizing the return content and argument. It avoids redundancy and presents information in a logical order, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated into the narrative.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail all return fields, but it highlights key ones (metadata, provenance hash, compliance status, on-chain anchor). For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete, covering the purpose, argument semantics, and core result content.
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 description adds value by clarifying that credential_id is a UUID and that it refers to the music credential, which the schema (type: string, no description) does not convey. This helps an agent understand the expected format and semantic meaning of the sole parameter, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 clearly states the tool gets full provenance details for a music credential, specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mt_verify_music_credential or mt_issue_music_credential, but 'provenance details' is specific enough for an agent to infer its distinct purpose.
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 provenance details are needed but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. It offers a clear context (retrieval of a credential's provenance) but lacks exclusions or routing to sibling tools.
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.