R/IV — Verify Claims, Citations & Agent Actions

evidence.monitor

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

Input Schema

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

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": {
+    "enum": [
+      "daily",
+      "weekly"
+    ]
+  },
+  "monitor_type": {
+    "enum": [
+      "claim",
+      "source",
+      "entity",
+      "dependency"
+    ]
+  },
+  "public_urls": {
+    "items": {
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 20,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "request_id": {
+    "description": "Caller-generated idempotency key for this paid execution attempt.",
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 8,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "target": {
+    "maxLength": 10000,
+    "minLength": 3,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / required

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

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses some behavior: execution is paid, completion yields an RVO plus a signed 'R/IV Verification Receipt.' That reveals a cost and an output, which the schema doesn't. It still omits what a monitor does over time (state changes, cadence effects), auth/permission needs, and failure behavior.

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 compact sentences with the identity front-loaded and no filler. The density of unexplained acronyms (R/IV, RVO, R/IV Verification Receipt) wastes the limited space on terms the agent cannot decode.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, but with five parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and two enums whose semantics are unexplained, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently populate target, monitor_type, or cadence from this text.

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 coverage is only 20% (just request_id), yet the description explains none of the five parameters: the crucial target, monitor_type ('claim','source','entity','dependency'), cadence, or public_urls. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving four parameters defined only by type and enum.

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?

It states a broad category ('independent evidence-verification primitive for monitoring') but the jargon 'R/IV' and 'RVO' is unexplained, and it never says what a monitor actually tracks. Against siblings like claim.monitor, dependency.monitor, and source.verify, an agent gets no basis for choosing this one. Purpose is only loosely conveyed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no description of when monitoring is preferred over one-shot verification siblings (e.g., citation.verify, transaction.verify), and no exclusions. The closest thing to guidance is the mention of 'completed paid execution,' which hints at a paywall but not usage conditions.

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?