R/IV — Verify Claims, Citations & Agent Actions

policy.monitor

R/IV policy.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

C2.6/5.0

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 it does add useful context: execution is a 'paid' run and a completed run returns an RVO plus a signed verification receipt. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, what cadence actually does, behavior on partial failure, and any rate or cost specifics beyond the word 'paid'.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, so it is not wasteful in length. But it opens by repeating the tool name and spends its limited budget on opaque acronyms ('R/IV', 'RVO') that carry no decodable meaning for an outside caller.

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 need not be detailed. But for a 5-parameter, 2-required monitoring tool with 20% schema coverage, key inputs like target, cadence, and materiality_rule are unexplained, and the domain vocabulary is never defined, leaving the definition inadequate to invoke the tool confidently.

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 is documented), yet the description explains none of the other parameters. 'target' (the primary required input), 'cadence', 'public_urls', and 'materiality_rule' receive no meaning here or in the schema, leaving the agent to guess at semantics and format.

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 names the resource (policy monitoring) and calls itself an 'independent evidence-verification primitive', but the actual operation is buried under undefined jargon ('R/IV', 'RVO'). It does not differentiate from the many sibling monitor tools (claim.monitor, vendor.monitor, evidence.monitor, dependency.monitor), so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this one.

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 any alternative. The crowded sibling set contains at least four other *.monitor tools with no routing guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given. 'For monitoring' merely restates the name.

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?