Verify a VerifiedMusicCredential by its ID.
Checks whether a music credential is valid (not revoked),
returns provenance summary including tool, human oversight,
rights, and on-chain anchor status.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool 'checks whether a music credential is valid (not revoked)' and returns a provenance summary, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but for a verification tool this is acceptable. The description adds some context beyond the bare name but could be richer.
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, leading with the core action, then summarizing the verification checks and return content, followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. It could be slightly tighter, but the structure is effective.
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 there is an output schema, the return format is already documented. The description explains the purpose, the checks performed (valid/not revoked), and the nature of the provenance summary (tool, human oversight, rights, on-chain anchor status). For a simple single-parameter verification tool, this is sufficiently complete. It could mention edge cases or error conditions, but they are likely covered by the output schema.
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 an 'Args' section clarifying that credential_id is a 'UUID of the music credential', which is more specific than the schema's bare property title 'Credential Id'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. For a single-parameter tool, this provides sufficient semantic value.
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 uses the specific verb 'verify' with the exact resource 'VerifiedMusicCredential' and explicitly states it operates by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling verify tools (e.g., moltguard_credential_verify, mt_shopping_verify) which target different credential types. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 for music credentials ('Verify a VerifiedMusicCredential') and the siblings make the distinction clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. An agent can infer from the credential type, but there's no direct 'use this when...' 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.