verify_audit
Validate the tamper-evident audit hash chain for a bond.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bond_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-surety
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'validate,' omitting details on side effects, error handling, or what the validation entails (e.g., does it check signatures? Is it read-only?).
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 and succinct, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks structure or additional details.
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?
Despite having an output schema (unknown content) and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites (e.g., bond must exist). The context is inadequate for reliable agent usage.
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 only parameter 'bond_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify its format, role, or constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 action ('validate') and the specific resource ('tamper-evident audit hash chain for a bond'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like activate_bond or bond_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. It does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or query in the surety bond lifecycle. The descriptions clearly differentiate between posting, pricing, activating, claiming, slashing, releasing, auditing, and querying status. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., post_bond, activate_bond, file_claim). The only slight deviation is bond_status, which is still clear and fits the query pattern. Overall naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a surety bond system. Each tool covers a necessary operation without unnecessary duplication. The count feels neither sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from posting to release and audit. Notable gaps include the absence of a cancellation or withdrawal tool before activation, and no explicit dispute resolution without arbitration. However, these are minor and the core workflow is complete.