Skip to main content
Glama

WhiteMagic — governed local memory for agent continuity

by io.github.lbailey94
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a continuity receipt

receipts.verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a receipt id or a bundle offline; fail-closed without an anchor (verdict PROVISIONAL).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoReceipt task id (UUID or urn:uuid:)
bundleNoInline bundle to verify (alternative to id)
variantNoReceipt variant (default original)
require_anchorNoFail-closed: without an anchor the verdict is PROVISIONAL

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoReceipt UUID that was verified
resultNoVerdict detail: errors, insufficient/provisional reasons, and a summary (attestations, issuers, receipts, settled, terminated, types).
require_anchorNoWhether an external anchor was required

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Stored receipt task id (UUID or urn:uuid:)"New value: +"Receipt task id (UUID or urn:uuid:)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / variant / description
      Previous value: -"Stored variant (default original)"New value: +"Receipt variant (default original)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / description
      Previous value: -"Result envelope for this tool; fields vary by operation."New value: +"Verification report for a receipt or bundle."
    • addedOutput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "id": {
+    "description": "Receipt UUID that was verified",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "require_anchor": {
+    "description": "Whether an external anchor was required",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "result": {
+    "description": "Verdict detail: errors, insufficient/provisional reasons, and a summary (attestations, issuers, receipts, settled, terminated, types).",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive local operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: verification works offline, it is fail-closed, and an absent anchor yields a PROVISIONAL verdict rather than an error.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and both input modes, then the fail-closed consequence. No filler and nothing redundant with the structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the verdict payload, and the key behavioral caveats (offline, fail-closed, PROVISIONAL) are covered. It is complete enough for a four-param verification call, though it says nothing about failure modes for malformed bundles.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of id vs bundle as alternatives and the PROVISIONAL consequence of require_anchor largely restates what the schema descriptions already say.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (continuity receipt) and names the two input modes, receipt id or inline bundle. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling, but no sibling performs receipt verification, so the risk of confusion is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'verify a receipt id or a bundle' implies the calling context (checking a receipt's validity, usable offline), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WhiteMagic — governed local memory for agent continuity toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources