widespread

wide_ship_prepare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build the canonical dg1 work-attestation fields to sign locally with your Ed25519 seed (deliverable = signed ship op on the forge).

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": {
      "did": "<did>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "commits": "<commits>"
    },
    "name": "wide_ship_prepare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`did`	Yes
`repo`	Yes
`tool`	No
`files`	No
`commits`	Yes
`receipt`	No
`artifact`	No
`session_id`	No
`proof_items`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / artifact
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / receipt

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that, namely that the caller must supply their own Ed25519 seed for local signing. However, 'deliverable = signed ship op on the forge' blurs whether this tool produces the fields or the on-forge result, which matters given readOnlyHint=true.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action comes first. The parenthetical is cryptic rather than wasteful, so density rather than length is the issue.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, so the description needs to explain the parameter semantics and the shape of what comes back. Instead it covers only the signing model, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, including nested objects (files, receipt) and proof_items, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It gives no meaning for did, repo, commits, tool, artifact, session_id or proof_items; 'work-attestation fields' is the only hint, and it does not map to any named parameter.

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 names a specific verb and artifact: 'Build the canonical dg1 work-attestation fields to sign locally,' with the deliverable framed as a signed ship op. The prepare-vs-submit split from sibling wide_ship_submit is implied by 'to sign locally,' though the heavy jargon ('dg1', 'forge', 'ship op') keeps it from being immediately transparent to a newcomer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'to sign locally with your Ed25519 seed' suggests a prepare-then-sign-then-submit workflow, but the description never names wide_ship_submit or states prerequisites such as needing a registered identity. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

All widespread 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.