Document Integrity Validator

Check Document Package Integrity

check_document_package

Read-only

Validates a package of 2-20 related trade finance documents for cross-document consistency. Call this BEFORE approving any multi-document trade finance transaction or cross-border shipment -- at the moment a set of 2-20 related documents arrives from an external party and funds have not been released. Use this when your agent has received a full trade finance package — such as invoice, bill of lading, and certificate of origin together — and must verify all documents are consistent with each other before releasing funds. Returns PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdict per document with mismatch details. Cross-checks all documents for consistency across numeric values, party names, reference numbers, dates, and commodity descriptions. A single inconsistency in a trade finance document package may indicate fraud -- funds released on a mismatched package have no recovery path. Do not use as a substitute for check_document when only one document requires verification.

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": {
      "documents": "<documents>"
    },
    "name": "check_document_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`documents`	Yes	Array of 2 to 20 related documents to assess individually and cross-check against each other. Each document must have a unique label.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`verdict`	Yes
`documents`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`_disclaimer`	Yes
`verdict_ttl`	Yes
`agent_action`	Yes
`analysis_type`	Yes
`calls_remaining`	Yes
`package_verdict`	Yes
`data_source_status`	Yes
`package_agent_action`	Yes
`cross_document_conflicts`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedJun 25, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / calls_remaining

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "const": "unlimited",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / data_source_status

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "full",
+    "degraded",
+    "partial"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / verdict_ttl
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "agent_action",
-  "verdict",
-  "confidence",
-  "documents",
-  "cross_document_conflicts",
-  "package_verdict",
-  "package_agent_action",
-  "analysis_type",
-  "checked_at",
-  "_disclaimer"
-]New value: +[
+  "agent_action",
+  "verdict",
+  "confidence",
+  "documents",
+  "cross_document_conflicts",
+  "package_verdict",
+  "package_agent_action",
+  "analysis_type",
+  "checked_at",
+  "_disclaimer",
+  "calls_remaining",
+  "verdict_ttl",
+  "data_source_status"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedJun 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "_disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "agent_action": {
+      "enum": [
+        "PROCEED",
+        "VERIFY_MANUALLY",
+        "HOLD",
+        "REFER_TO_HUMAN",
+        "UPGRADE_REQUIRED"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "analysis_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "confidence": {
+      "enum": [
+        "HIGH",
+        "MEDIUM",
+        "LOW",
+        "NONE"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cross_document_conflicts": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "documents": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "agent_action": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/agent_action"
+          },
+          "assessed_against": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "confidence": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/confidence"
+          },
+          "document_type_identified": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "flags": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "known_issuing_standard": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/verdict"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "label",
+          "agent_action",
+          "verdict",
+          "confidence",
+          "document_type_identified",
+          "assessed_against",
+          "known_issuing_standard",
+          "flags",
+          "reason"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "package_agent_action": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/agent_action"
+    },
+    "package_verdict": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/verdict"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "enum": [
+        "PASS",
+        "FLAG",
+        "FAIL",
+        "UNKNOWN_DOCUMENT_TYPE"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "agent_action",
+    "verdict",
+    "confidence",
+    "documents",
+    "cross_document_conflicts",
+    "package_verdict",
+    "package_agent_action",
+    "analysis_type",
+    "checked_at",
+    "_disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: returns PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdicts per document, cross-checks numeric values, party names, reference numbers, dates, and commodity descriptions, and warns that a single inconsistency may indicate fraud with no recovery path. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence contributes: purpose, timing, input composition, return format, checks performed, risk rationale, and an exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex, safety-critical cross-document validation tool, the description covers purpose, input requirements, return style, what is checked, fraud risk, and when to avoid using it. The output schema exists, so return format details are not required, and the description still mentions the PASS/FLAG/FAIL verdict. This is fully complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single parameter 'documents' has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches it by framing the array as a 'full trade finance package' with examples (invoice, bill of lading, certificate of origin) and emphasizing the cross-document consistency purpose. It doesn't add new syntax details, but the examples and context add practical meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb ('Validates'), a specific resource ('a package of 2-20 related trade finance documents'), and a clear outcome ('for cross-document consistency'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_document by warning not to use it when only one document needs verification.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE approving any multi-document trade finance transaction or cross-border shipment' and 'when funds have not been released'. It also gives a concrete example of a full package and an explicit when-not-to-use: 'Do not use as a substitute for check_document when only one document requires verification.'

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

All Document Integrity Validator tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.