Verify binder integrity (sig + ordered leaf hashes). Does not prove underlying settlement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binder | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what is checked (signature and ordered leaf hashes) and, importantly, what is not checked (underlying settlement), which is a non-obvious and valuable boundary. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, but 'verify' strongly implies a non-mutating check.
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 extremely compact: a front-loaded action, a parenthetical technical detail, and a caveat. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause adds distinct information.
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?
The tool has a clear purpose and an important limitation, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with no annotations and a schema that provides no structure for 'binder', the description does not fully explain how to populate or pass the input. It also does not mention when to prefer it over, or avoid it in favor of, other tools beyond the settlement caveat.
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 only parameter, 'binder', is an opaque object with additionalProperties true and zero schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by naming the components that matter ('sig + ordered leaf hashes'), but it does not define the expected shape, field names, or how the binder should be obtained or constructed. The compensation is therefore only partial.
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 a specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource, 'binder integrity', and expands on what that means: 'sig + ordered leaf hashes'. The negative clause 'Does not prove underlying settlement' further sharpens the boundary. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutating siblings like binder_append and binder_seal.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when binder integrity needs to be checked. It also provides an explicit limitation, 'Does not prove underlying settlement', warning the agent not to treat this as a settlement proof. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or conditions, so it does not fully earn a 5.
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 stage or concern: append adds leaves, seal finalizes the binder, verify checks integrity, and health reports service status. There is no meaningful overlap in purpose or output.
binder_append, binder_seal, and binder_verify follow a clear, consistent binder_<verb> pattern. health breaks that pattern by omitting the binder_ prefix, making it a minor deviation.
Four tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose. Each tool earns its place in the append-seal-verify workflow, with health as a useful operational supplement and no redundancy.
The core lifecycle is covered: append leaves, seal a binder, and verify its integrity. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit inspect/list tool to review appended leaves before sealing, but this is workable around.