Kirk — Unsupervised Structural Change Detection

Verify Kirk Engine Identity

kirk_verify_engine

Read-only

Verify sealed engine identity — returns the sha256 of the running scoring binary. Also serves as a liveness probe against the sealed backend.

Purpose: Attest which Kirk build is currently serving scoring calls. Response carries the HOST DEFAULT engine sha (kirk_version). That is the legacy default and is NOT necessarily the engine that will stamp a given kirk_score_* result: each model row in kirk_list_models identifies its own engine, and every scoring response restates it under engine.sha. For a model bound to a non-default engine (kirk-market-orderbook-v1) these differ. Record the per-model value for provenance, not this one. Secondary role: a cheap liveness probe when wiring up MCP.

Use when: You want to record engine sha in your own provenance log before capturing scoring output, or you want a cheap liveness check ahead of a larger validation batch.

Do not use when: You want a scoring result — this returns identity/liveness only, no entropies.

Capability class(es): C5 (cryptographic attestation of engine identity).

Path fit: Validation via MCP (this tool). Production integrations run in-process under sealed-engine attestation — same binary sha as this endpoint. Contact Kavara for deployment options.

Cost: 0 IU. Free tool. For agent-driven callers, the _cost envelope still reports iu_this_call=0 and the running session totals.

Returns: Dict with status, engine, env, and kirk_version (the sealed .so sha). A non-2xx response raises; caller sees a clean MCP tool error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: the returned default engine sha may differ from the per-model engine sha, responses restate engine.sha, and non-2xx responses raise clean MCP errors. This goes well beyond annotation basics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into clear sections. It is longer than strictly necessary, with occasional repetition around liveness probing and cost, but the extra detail about engine sha provenance is valuable enough to justify the length.

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?

Comprehensive for a zero-parameter, read-only tool. Covers purpose, liveness role, return fields, cost, error behavior, and the critical distinction between default and per-model engine hashes. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return semantics and usage context instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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?

States a precise action: verify sealed engine identity and return the sha256 of the running scoring binary. Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling scoring tools by emphasizing this is identity/liveness only and returns no entropies.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including when to record provenance and when to use it as a liveness check. It also names the scoring-result exclusion, which prevents confusion with kirk_score_* siblings.

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

All Kirk — Unsupervised Structural Change Detection 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.