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 | UUID of the music credential |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / credential_id / descriptionAdded value: +"UUID of the music credential"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the wording and the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing what is actually checked (revocation) and what the response summarizes (tool, human oversight, rights, on-chain anchor status). It does not cover failure semantics, such as what is returned for an unknown or non-existent credential ID, which keeps it below 5.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the second sentence efficiently explains what verification reports, and there is no filler. The trailing Args block is redundant with a 100%-documented schema and slightly bloats an otherwise tight definition.
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 single-parameter read-only verification tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough: what is being checked, what the result summarizes, and the safety profile via annotations. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (unknown ID, malformed UUID, anchors pending), which an agent might want before calling.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the Args block merely restates the schema text ('UUID of the music credential') verbatim. It adds no positional or format nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('VerifiedMusicCredential by its ID'), then states the exact semantic of the check ('valid (not revoked)'). That clearly separates it from the many sibling write tools such as mt_issue_music_credential and from the other domain verifiers (mt_skill_verify, mt_travel_verify).
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 gives a clear condition for calling it: you have a credential ID and want to know if it is still valid / revoked and what provenance it carries. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative tool (e.g. the issuer, or a broader reputation lookup), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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.