Verify an AI agent skill by its canonical SHA-256 hash.
Checks if a VerifiedSkillCredential has been issued for this skill hash.
Returns credential details if verified.
Args:
skill_hash: Canonical skill hash (e.g. "sha256:a1b2c3...")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_hash | Yes | Canonical skill hash (e.g. "sha256:a1b2c3...") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / skill_hash / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical skill hash (e.g. \"sha256:a1b2c3...\")"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already declaring that this is a safe read operation, the description adds useful behavioral context: it checks credential issuance and returns credential details if verified. It does not describe the unverified case, but it otherwise gives a clear behavioral picture for a read-only verification tool.
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 short and front-loaded with the verification purpose. The Args block duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.
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 simple one-parameter read-only verification tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, input meaning, and success behavior sufficiently. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state what happens when no credential exists, but the output schema likely covers return details.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single skill_hash parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the same example and adds no extra syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for full schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: verify an AI agent skill by its canonical SHA-256 hash. It also clarifies that the check is for an issued VerifiedSkillCredential. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as mt_skill_audit or mt_skill_issue_vc, so it stops short of a 5.
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 makes the use case implicit: look up whether a VerifiedSkillCredential exists for a given skill hash. It does not state when to use this versus sibling verification or issuance tools, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. This is enough for an implied usage pattern but not explicit routing guidance.
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.