Register a third-party MCP server (https, public FQDN only) under Viridis Verified. Returns a content-addressed service_id; idempotent on (url, provider). fee_minor is the per-verified-call fee in cents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| fee_minor | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| payment_ref | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so effectively by stating that it is idempotent on (url, provider), returns a content-addressed service_id, and explains the fee_minor parameter. It doesn't cover authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds constraints, return information, idempotency, and parameter detail in a compact, well-structured manner.
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?
The description is largely complete for a registration tool, covering purpose, key constraints, idempotency, return value, and fee semantics. The presence of an output schema likely covers return structure. However, several parameters (request_id, payment_ref, description) are left ambiguous, and the description does not mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond idempotency.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines fee_minor ('per-verified-call fee in cents') and clarifies the identity role of url and provider through the idempotency note. However, request_id, description, and payment_ref remain unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Register a third-party MCP server... under Viridis Verified.' It includes a specific verb (register), the resource (third-party MCP server), and contextual constraints (https, public FQDN only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services or call_verified, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (registering an MCP server) and even specifies constraints (https, public FQDN only). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full alternatives/exclusion guidance.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: call_verified, register_service, get_receipt, and verify_receipts are clearly separate. list_services and service_stats overlap in exposing call counts and fees, but one is a fleet-wide view while the other is a single-service detail, so confusion is unlikely with descriptions.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (call_verified, register_service, get_receipt, verify_receipts). However, 'service_stats' deviates slightly from the verb-first convention (could be get_service_stats), and 'call_verified' uses an adjective rather than a clear noun, making the pattern less uniform.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the relay service: registration, invocation, receipt retrieval, stats, and auditing, without unnecessary bloat or missing core functions.
The core workflow (register a service, call it, verify receipts, fetch stats) is fully covered. Minor gaps exist: there is no update or deregistration for services, and no way to list all receipts without knowing IDs, but these are edge cases that can be worked around via service_stats and verify_receipts.