Agent Commerce Readiness

Verify Agent Commerce Upgrade

verify_agent_commerce_upgrade

Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-audit after fixes using prior ACR receipt. Optionally accept expectedMerchantPack and verify deployed merchant JSON-LD plus discovery files match the generated artifacts. Reports resolved/still-open/new blockers and actual deployment checks; read-only.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "previous": "<previous>"
    },
    "name": "verify_agent_commerce_upgrade"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public HTTP(S) website or storefront after changes.
`previous`	Yes	Prior ACR remediation object or compact object containing unresolvedTaskIds.
`paymentResourceUrl`	No	Optional exact paid machine resource to re-probe.
`expectedMerchantPack`	No	Optional merchantDeployment object returned by prepare tool. Enables read-only comparison with actual deployed JSON-LD and site discovery files.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`currentAudit`	Yes
`resolvedTaskIds`	Yes
`stillOpenTaskIds`	Yes
`introducedTaskIds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expectedMerchantPack

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional merchantDeployment object returned by prepare tool. Enables read-only comparison with actual deployed JSON-LD and site discovery files.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it reports resolved/still-open/new blockers and performs actual deployment checks, and discloses the read-only comparison against deployed JSON-LD and discovery files. No auth or rate-limit detail, but not required here.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the re-audit purpose and receipt dependency are front-loaded. Density from domain jargon slightly reduces immediate readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still signals the blocker-status output shape. Required and optional inputs and the comparison behavior are covered adequately for a read-only verification tool; the meaning of the prior-receipt structure is the only lightly covered area.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that `previous` is the prior ACR receipt and that `expectedMerchantPack` drives a read-only comparison of deployed JSON-LD/discovery files against generated artifacts. This explains the semantic effect of the optional param beyond its schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (re-audit/verify) and resource (agent commerce upgrade), and its scope — using a prior ACR receipt and reporting resolved/still-open/new blockers — clearly differentiates it from the first-pass audit sibling. The jargon (ACR, merchant pack, JSON-LD) is dense but the operation is identifiable.

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?

'Re-audit after fixes using prior ACR receipt' establishes the trigger condition (post-remediation) that distinguishes this from audit_agent_commerce_readiness and prepare_agent_commerce_upgrade. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Agent Commerce Readiness 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.

Resources

Need Help?