vealth

Where a worker stands on a site authorization

site_authorization_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read whether the site's authorization of one worker wallet on one job stands right now: authorized, withdrawn, no longer standing because its signer stopped speaking for the job's site, or none. A worker asks it to see whether the contractor's signature has landed; a contractor asks it to see that theirs did. It shows no note and no signer address. Free, keyless, nothing to sign. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

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": {
      "workId": "<workId>",
      "workerWallet": "<workerWallet>"
    },
    "name": "site_authorization_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.
`workerWallet`	Yes	The 0x… address of the worker to read. Address only, never a private key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`tool`	No
`funded`	No
`payUsd`	No
`workId`	No
`claimId`	No
`claimable`	No
`next_call`	No
`proofRule`	No
`fulfillableBy`	No
`definitionOfDone`	No
`needs_from_caller`	No
`notClaimableReason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is free, keyless, requires nothing to sign, and returns no note or signer address. That is meaningful disclosure for a status-read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The status enumeration is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence repeats the earlier 'free, keyless, nothing to sign' content almost verbatim. The repetition costs space without adding information.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It could more explicitly route away from the prepare/submit siblings, but the core behavioral context is present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only broad context that the workId identifies a job and the wallet identifies a worker, without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 read operation over a worker wallet and job, and enumerates the possible authorization states, which makes the resource and scope clear. It does not explicitly name the sibling write/prepare tools, but the read-only framing distinguishes it adequately.

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?

Gives clear usage contexts: a worker checks whether the contractor's signature has landed, and a contractor checks that theirs did. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as prepare_site_authorization or submit_site_authorization, so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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

All vealth 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?