get_certificate
Return a formatted copyright/authenticity certificate for a piece.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Return a formatted copyright/authenticity certificate for a piece.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionRemoved value: -"Piece slug"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "content": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "content": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It uses 'Return' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether the certificate is generated or retrieved, what input format is expected, or any side effects. The description lacks sufficient behavioral detail.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words.
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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is too minimal: it does not explain what a certificate contains, what 'piece' refers to, or how to interpret the output. With no output schema or annotations, the agent has insufficient context.
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?
The schema provides no description for 'slug', and the tool description also does not explain what slug represents or its format. The phrase 'for a piece' hints at the purpose but does not explicitly map slug to the piece identifier.
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 returns a formatted certificate for a piece, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verify_content or request_license, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_content or request_license. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
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.