R/IV — Verify Claims, Citations & Agent Actions

vendor.monitor

R/IV vendor.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

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 disclose two meaningful traits: execution is paid, and a completed run returns an RVO plus a signed verification receipt. However it omits cost/pricing, whether 'cadence' triggers recurring charges, auth/permission requirements, and side effects of setting up monitoring, so the disclosure is partial.

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 with the tool identity front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the compression is partly achieved through unexplained acronyms rather than clear language.

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 five-parameter paid monitoring tool with no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: parameters are unexplained, cost behavior is only implied, and undefined terms (RVO) are never clarified. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input and behavioral context are far too thin.

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% (only request_id is documented as an idempotency key), and the description compensates for none of it: target, cadence, public_urls, and materiality_rule are left with no explanation in either place. The prose adds no meaning the schema does not already carry.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description labels the tool an 'independent evidence-verification primitive for monitoring' but never states in plain language what it actually does to a vendor (e.g. monitor a vendor's public URLs for changes over time). It is saturated with undefined jargon ('R/IV', 'RVO', 'Verification Receipt') and gives no way to distinguish it from the many sibling monitors such as evidence.monitor, claim.monitor, or policy.monitor.

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 exclusions, and no routing to alternatives despite a large sibling set that includes vendor.diligence and several other *.monitor tools. The only faint context is 'Completed paid execution', which hints at a paid workflow but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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?