verify_audit
Verify the tamper-evident audit chain of allowed/denied acts.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| covenant_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-covenant
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must explain behavior fully. It only says 'verify', implying a read operation, but does not disclose permissions, cost, or what constitutes failure. No return value or side effects are mentioned.
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?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, but might be too minimal for a tool with no annotations. It earns its place but lacks structure or elaboration.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the output represents or how to interpret results, leaving the agent under-informed.
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?
The sole parameter covenant_id is described only by its schema title 'Covenant Id'. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Verify the tamper-evident audit chain of allowed/denied acts' clearly states the verb 'verify' and resource 'tamper-evident audit chain' with specific scope. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like check_act or covenant_status.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_act or covenant_status. There are no hints about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: granting, revoking, checking, listing, status, auditing, and self-description. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., grant_covenant, check_act), but covenant_status uses noun_noun, a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the covenant lifecycle without bloat, fitting well within the 3-15 optimal range.
Completeness4/5
Core operations (grant, revoke, check, list, status, audit) are covered. Missing a dedicated tool to view a single covenant's details, but list_covenants and covenant_status likely suffice.