R/IV — Verify Claims, Citations & Agent Actions

dependency.monitor

R/IV dependency.monitor — independent evidence-verification primitive for monitoring. Completed paid execution returns an RVO plus signed R/IV Verification Receipt.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes
`cadence`	No		daily
`request_id`	Yes	Caller-generated idempotency key for this paid execution attempt.
`public_urls`	No
`materiality_rule`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cost`	Yes
`jobId`	Yes
`result`	Yes	R/IV Verification Object with evidence, limitations, verdict and resultHash.
`status`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes
`timestamps`	Yes
`operationId`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`operationVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$id": "https://rdiv-production-runtime-production.up.railway.app/schemas/riv-machine-result-v2.json",
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Schema of a completed R/IV machine execution. Cryptographic receipt integrity does not independently establish the truth of any underlying conclusion. Free trials may use a separate contract.",
+  "properties": {
+    "cost": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "amount": {
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "currency": {
+          "const": "USD"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "currency",
+        "amount"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "jobId": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operationId": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operationVersion": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "issuedAt": {
+          "format": "date-time",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "jobId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "operationId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "receiptId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "receiptVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resultHash": {
+          "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "sha256": {
+          "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "signature": {
+          "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "receiptVersion",
+        "receiptId",
+        "jobId",
+        "requestId",
+        "operationId",
+        "resultHash",
+        "issuedAt",
+        "sha256",
+        "signature"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "requestId": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "R/IV Verification Object with evidence, limitations, verdict and resultHash.",
+      "properties": {
+        "limitations": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "operationId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resultHash": {
+          "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "verdict": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "verificationId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "operationId",
+        "verificationId",
+        "verdict",
+        "limitations",
+        "resultHash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "schemaVersion": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "COMPLETED"
+    },
+    "timestamps": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "completedAt": {
+          "format": "date-time",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "completedAt"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schemaVersion",
+    "requestId",
+    "jobId",
+    "operationId",
+    "operationVersion",
+    "status",
+    "verdict",
+    "result",
+    "receipt",
+    "cost",
+    "timestamps"
+  ],
+  "title": "R/IV Machine Verification Result v2 - authenticated paid execution",
+  "type": "object",
+  "x-riv-receipt-policy": {
+    "integrity": "server-side HMAC verification required for v1 receipts",
+    "meaning": "signed provenance and execution integrity; not evidence that an underlying claim is true"
+  },
+  "x-riv-status": "public-contract-v2-live-machine-completed-only"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "cadence": {
+    "default": "daily",
+    "enum": [
+      "daily",
+      "weekly"
+    ]
+  },
+  "materiality_rule": {
+    "maxLength": 10000,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "public_urls": {
+    "items": {
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 50,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "request_id": {
+    "description": "Caller-generated idempotency key for this paid execution attempt.",
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 8,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "target": {
+    "maxLength": 20000,
+    "minLength": 3,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "target",
+  "request_id"
+]

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that execution is 'paid' and that completion yields an RVO plus a signed receipt, which is useful context, but it says nothing about permissions, failure behavior, rate limits, or what happens to a monitoring cadence once established.

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?

Two tight sentences that are front-loaded with the tool name and its role. Nothing is padded, though the heavy jargon slightly reduces immediate legibility.

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?

For a paid, five-parameter tool with mostly undocumented schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It needn't explain return values (an output schema exists), but it should clarify target semantics, cadence behavior, and the materiality_rule, which it does not.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just request_id), yet the description explains none of the five parameters. The meaning of 'target', 'cadence', 'public_urls', and especially 'materiality_rule' is left entirely to the bare schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a 'dependency monitoring' verification primitive, but it is wrapped in proprietary jargon (R/IV, RVO, Verification Receipt) that obscures what the tool actually checks. It never differentiates itself from the closely-named sibling dependency.map or the many other *.monitor tools, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus dependency.map, evidence.monitor, or claim.monitor. The only hint is the word 'monitoring', which is implied rather than explained, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

All R/IV — Verify Claims, Citations & Agent Actions tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?