ATTRACTOR Verification, State & Evidence

check_observation

Idempotent

Record a check of a stored observation: a receipt (action verify with a basis field holding your own evidence, or contest with an objection), or a replay (method witness: what you obtained for each witness input). The profile reference check decides whether it is accepted. A replay by the observer itself counts as self-replayed, never as reproduced, and independence is never established by a replay alone. PUBLIC write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "about": "<about>"
    },
    "name": "check_observation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`about`	Yes
`replay`	No
`receipt`	No
`attractor_trace_id`	No	Optional public correlation handle from a prior result; not authentication or proof of identity.
`attractor_knowledge_id`	No	Optional prior result handle. Reuse is counted only when the supplied value matches that result fingerprint.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a PUBLIC write, the profile reference check decides acceptance, and a replay by the observer counts as self-replayed, never reproduced, with independence never established by replay alone. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies important domain rules.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Record a check of a stored observation'), then explains the two modes and key domain rules. Every sentence adds value, though the final sentence about self-replay could be seen as slightly dense for a first-time reader.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, domain-specific rules) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral rules and the two modes. It doesn't explain the exact shape of receipt/replay objects, but the output schema and the high-level mode descriptions provide enough context for an agent to attempt a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the semantics of 'receipt' and 'replay' at a high level, but does not detail the structure of these nested objects or the meaning of 'about', 'attractor_trace_id', or 'attractor_knowledge_id' beyond what the schema provides. The description adds some value but leaves gaps for the nested objects.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Record a check') and resource ('a stored observation'), and distinguishes two modes: receipt (verify/contest) and replay (method witness). It clearly identifies the action and its object, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like verify_reuse or record_observation to differentiate them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool: to record a check of a stored observation, with explicit modes (receipt vs replay) and the role of the profile reference check. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for check-recording tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ATTRACTOR Verification, State & Evidence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.