verify_deliveryScore a delivery on accuracy, completeness, evidence, and requirements (0-100 each).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| accuracy | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| contractId | Yes | ||
| completeness | Yes | ||
| requirements | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the scoring dimensions and range, but it does not disclose whether verification mutates state, what it returns, whether a delivery must already exist, or any side effects.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action and scoring scale are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It tells the agent what four scores to provide but not what happens when verification is performed, what the response is, or how it connects to the contract lifecycle.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to the four numeric score parameters (accuracy, completeness, evidence, requirements) and their range, but it leaves apiKey, contractId, and notes unexplained.
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 states a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('a delivery'), and names four scored dimensions with a 0-100 range. This distinguishes it from sibling actions like submit_delivery and settle_contract, though it does not explicitly clarify the workflow stage.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus submit_delivery or settle_contract, and no prerequisites are stated. The workflow position is only implied by the tool name and sibling list, not by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct lifecycle action or query: registration, contract creation, delivery submission, verification, settlement, notifications, and transaction listing. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as create_contract, submit_delivery, and verify_delivery. The naming style is uniform across the entire set.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool supports a distinct part of the agent contract workflow. The count feels appropriately scoped without unnecessary redundancy.
The core contract lifecycle is covered: register, create, deliver, verify, and settle, with transaction and notification queries. Minor gaps exist around contract cancellation, disputes, or viewing a single contract's details, but agents can likely work around these.