attest-mcp-remote

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: metadata is self-declared and does not prove authorship, the signature is immutable, the server never receives files, and the binding process includes normalization and timestamping. This is thorough, though it could mention error handling or latency.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it packs multiple details into a single paragraph. While every sentence earns its place, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for hash computation commands) without losing clarity.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the attestation process, credential requirements, and alternative methods. However, it omits details about the tool's return value (e.g., an attestation ID) that might be useful for follow-up actions, though sibling tools may cover this.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by distinguishing which parameters are 'bound by the signature' (autore, titolo, anno, note) vs. descriptive only (name, size, type). It also reinforces critical safety advice for the sha256 parameter, exceeding the schema's explanation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Attest a work: the service binds the SHA-256 fingerprint to a server-side timestamp and signs it (HMAC).' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verify_attestation' or 'authorize'.

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 explicitly requires a credential via 'authorize' or API key header, and provides detailed instructions for computing the SHA-256 hash locally. It advises against sending file bytes and directs users to alternative methods (website/bot) when local computation is impossible, though it does not compare directly to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses all relevant behavioral traits: session limits (20 attestations, 24h), user involvement (link to open in browser, anti-bot check), and that it returns a link. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, explaining user interaction, and noting exceptions. Information is front-loaded and no extraneous text.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description completely explains the authorization flow, constraints, and next steps. It leaves no ambiguity about its role or how to proceed.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema implies. However, it adds context about the overall operation, which is acceptable given zero parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it initiates the device-flow authorization for attestation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly referencing `complete_authorization` as the next step, and notes scenarios where this tool is not needed.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (need to authorize for attestation) and when-not-to-use (if API key header present or for verification tools). It also instructs to call `complete_authorization` after user approval, giving clear guidance on the workflow.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only check that requires SHA-256 fingerprints, warns against sending file bytes, explains privacy, and mentions proof maturation time. No hidden side effects or destructive actions are implied.

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 well-structured and each sentence adds value, but it is somewhat long. It could be slightly tightened while retaining all information, but it remains clear and informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers input requirements, computation methods, privacy, proof lifecycle, and user alternatives, leaving no critical gaps.

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 schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it provides multiple ways to compute the hash, warns against sending file bytes, and offers fallback options (website/TG bot) if the agent cannot compute locally. This fully compensates for any lack of schema detail.

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 clearly states the action ('Check whether a work's SHA-256 fingerprint has an OpenTimestamps proof anchored in Bitcoin') and the specific resource (anchor proof). It distinguishes itself from siblings like attest_hash and verify_attestation by focusing solely on anchor status.

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 explains when to use the tool (after attestation, while proof matures) and provides lifecycle context ('pending → Bitcoin-confirmed within hours'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the polling behavior and the non-blocking retry mechanism. However, it doesn't mention potential error states or timeouts.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load purpose and provide actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage flow, and retry logic. Could be slightly improved by noting prerequisite of 'authorize' call.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so baseline is 4. Description adds no unnecessary parameter info.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: completing device-flow authorization after user approval. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authorize' which initiates the flow.

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 provides clear guidance: use after user approval in browser, and if not yet approved, call again. It implies polling behavior but doesn't explicitly state when not to use.

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

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

The description discloses that the PDF is cryptographically signed, anchored in Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps, and archived server-side. It also explains the return format (permanent links). However, it does not mention any authorization requirements or potential side effects, which would be helpful given zero annotations.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core action and prerequisite; the second elaborates on the output and security properties. No wasted words.

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 the complexity (cryptographic signing, archiving) and the presence of authorization-related siblings, the description covers the main workflow. It could be improved by noting that authorization via `authorize`/`complete_authorization` may be required, but overall it's sufficient for correct invocation.

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 ties the `sha256` parameter to the prior `attest_hash` call, providing crucial context beyond the schema's technical description. It clarifies that the hash must correspond to an already attested fingerprint.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Generate and archive the certificate PDF for a fingerprint attested in this session with attest_hash.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like attest_hash (attesting) and lookup_certificate (retrieving existing).

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite: the fingerprint must have been attested using `attest_hash`. It also clarifies that the PDF is not inlined but downloadable, setting expectations for the response. This guides proper use.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full weight. It discloses the read-only nature, the trust model (only known fingerprint can reach info), and the output format. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but for a lookup tool this is adequate.

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 and well-structured. Two sentences cover purpose and output, and a second paragraph adds trust model and input guidelines. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, input, output, and privacy implications, leaving no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds significant value by explaining what SHA-256 is, how to compute it, and warning not to send file bytes. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool does a lookup of an attestation certificate by SHA-256 fingerprint and returns permanent links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or authorization.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a SHA-256 fingerprint and want to check for a certificate), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes usage clear.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the output (health status with four components and four possible values) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. Could mention lack of side effects explicitly.

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?

Single sentence front-loads purpose and enumerates components and values efficiently with zero wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by clarifying whether the response is a single status or per-component status, but the list strongly implies per-component.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by enumerating components and their possible values, which is valuable beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns health status of specific attestation service components (worker, archive, signer, anchor) with explicit value options. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about attestation, authorization, certificate creation, etc.

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 checking service component health but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any conditions for when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it checks only the signature, not file authenticity; it never receives file bytes; and it requires exact metadata. This transparency is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 yet thorough, using two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the verification process, input requirements, and even provides fallback instructions for users who cannot compute hashes locally.

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?

Although the input schema already describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics such as 'exactly as printed', format examples for hmac (base64, 44 chars ending with '='), and guidance on computing SHA-256. This exceeds baseline expectations.

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 clearly states the tool verifies the HMAC signature of an attestation from the Spazio Genesi service. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting that it only checks the signature, not file matching, which sets it apart from potential sibling tools like 'attest_hash'.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to verify signature) and important usage notes: metadata must be provided exactly as printed, and file matching must be done locally. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, which would elevate the score.

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