verify_provenance
Read-onlyIdempotent
Strip-proof provenance verification via Aegis hash index. FREE - no payment required. (FREE)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes | Base64-encoded PNG/JPEG image |
studiomcphub
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds 'strip-proof' and 'free' but does not significantly extend behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 description is short but includes redundant repetition of 'FREE'. It is not optimally structured; the value is stated but could be more polished.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., verification result). It lacks this information, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.
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?
Parameter 'image' is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool verifies provenance using Aegis hash index, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_artwork which retrieve data, while this tool verifies authenticity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions it is free, but does not explain context, prerequisites, or scenarios where verification is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation—artwork retrieval, image processing, asset management, watermarking, etc.—with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like enrich_metadata and get_artwork_oracle are differentiated by depth and purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artwork, remove_background, register_hash). The few non-verb-starting names (compliance_manifest) are standard and do not break the overall pattern.
Tool Count4/5
27 tools is slightly above the typical range but justifiable given the broad domain covering artwork access, image processing, and digital rights. Each tool serves a unique purpose without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search, retrieve, analyze, edit, save, and verify assets. Gaps are minimal—e.g., no metadata deletion tool—but the core workflows are fully supported, and the inclusion of compliance and provenance tools adds value.