Skip to main content
Glama

Ambr

by io.github.getambr

ambr_verify_hash

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a contract's SHA-256 hash to confirm document integrity.

Checks whether the provided hash matches a contract stored on Ambr. Returns verification status, contract metadata, and Reader Portal URL if found.

Args:

  • hash (string, required): SHA-256 hash (64-character hex string)

Returns:

  • verified: boolean

  • contract_id: string (if found)

  • status: string (if found)

  • reader_url: string (if found)

Legibility: verification is the point at which legibility becomes provable — matching hash means the prose a human reads and the JSON a machine parses are the same document that was originally signed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesSHA-256 hash to verify (64-character hex)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details such as returning verification status, contract metadata, and Reader Portal URL. It also includes a philosophical note on legibility, which provides extra context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Legibility' paragraph adds abstract context but could be considered slightly verbose for an agent. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is complete. It explains the action, the required input format, the return values (despite no output schema), and provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'hash'. The description adds the format constraint ('64-character hex string'), but this is already present in the schema's description. Thus, the description adds limited value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: verifying a contract's SHA-256 hash to confirm document integrity. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('contract's SHA-256 hash'), and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'ambr_create_contract' or 'ambr_get_contract'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough given sibling names, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

All Ambr toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: create, retrieve, list templates, verify, and handshake are separate actions. The main confusion risk is between ambr_get_contract and ambr_get_contract_status, both take an id and return contract state, though the status tool emphasizes amendment-chain history.

Naming Consistency4/5

The ambr_ prefix and snake_case convention are applied consistently, with clear verb-like action words for most tools. ambr_agent_handshake deviates slightly from the clean verb_noun pattern, but the overall naming remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped size for a contract-management domain. Each tool covers an essential interaction: template discovery, contract creation, retrieval, status checking, hash verification, and counterparty handshake communication.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered well: create, retrieve, check status, verify, and act on a contract. Notable gaps include no tool to list a user's own contracts or explicitly terminate one, but these can be worked around or may be intentionally handled outside the API since contracts are likely immutable.

Resources