Verify a previously issued attestation by recomputing its hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| attestation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Verify', 'recomputing hash') but does not disclose error behavior or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, but could be slightly more informative; still concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema (not shown) so return values are covered, but description lacks context about prerequisites or expected usage flow, given simple params and no sibling differentiation in usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no parameter-specific context beyond inferring that attestation_id refers to an existing attestation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'attestation', with the method 'recomputing its hash', distinguishing it from sibling 'attest' which issues an attestation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after attestation) or preconditions; only describes the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: issuing attestations, self-description, history retrieval, outcome recording, score querying, and verification. No overlaps.
Tools mostly follow verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, record_outcome, score_agent, verify_attestation), but 'history' is a noun-only exception. Still clear and predictable.
Six tools cover the core trust oracle functionality without bloat. Each tool serves a necessary role in the lifecycle.
Covers recording outcomes, querying scores, and managing attestations. Lacks a tool to list agents or modify outcomes, but these are plausible intentional constraints.