Erzeugt einen qualifizierten eIDAS-Zeitstempel für base64-encodierten Inhalt (max 1 MB). Hash wird serverseitig berechnet. RFC 3161 via SIGNIUS/IDnow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | basic | |
| metadata | No | ||
| content_b64 | Yes | Base64-encoded content to stamp |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: server-side hash computation, RFC 3161 compliance, and size limit. It does not cover authentication or error cases, but the core behavior is well communicated.
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?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds relevant information, but the description could be better structured (e.g., separate sections for constraints and behavior).
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?
Covers the main action and important constraints but lacks details on return values (no output schema) and does not explain the 'tier' and 'metadata' parameters. Adequate but not fully complete given the tool's complexity.
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 low (33%); only 'content_b64' has a description in the schema, and the description merely restates that. 'tier' and 'metadata' are not explained, and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 it creates a qualified eIDAS timestamp for base64-encoded content, specifying max size and server-side hashing. It distinguishes from sibling 'stamp_hash' by implying this tool handles content directly and hashes server-side, though not explicitly.
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?
Provides important constraints (max 1 MB, base64 input) and mentions the timestamp standard (RFC 3161). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'stamp_hash' or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.