Erzeugt einen qualifizierten eIDAS-Zeitstempel für einen SHA-256-Hash. RFC 3161 via SIGNIUS/IDnow Trust Services AB (EU Trusted List).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Stamp tier (basic=hash-only, plus=with URL, sealed=full content) | basic |
| metadata | No | Optional key-value metadata persisted with the stamp | |
| sha256_hex | Yes | Lowercase 64-char hex SHA-256 hash |
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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation of a timestamp but does not disclose consequences (e.g., costs, rate limits, what happens if the hash is already stamped). The phrase 'qualifizierten eIDAS-Zeitstempel' implies compliance, but no behavioral details beyond that.
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 extremely concise (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the key action ('Erzeugt...'). No unnecessary words or fluff.
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?
Given no output schema, the description could explain the return value (e.g., the timestamp token or confirmation ID). For a tool with 3 parameters and complete schema coverage, it is somewhat incomplete missing output behavior. The presence of nested objects (metadata) is not elaborated.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 3 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it references only the hash input). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no further value.
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 creates a qualified eIDAS timestamp for a SHA-256 hash, specifying the standard (RFC 3161) and provider (SIGNIUS/IDnow). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kavra_siegel_stamp_content (for content) and kavra_siegel_verify_token (for verification).
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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. There is no explicit 'when-not' or condition for usage. The description assumes the agent knows when a hash-based timestamp is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.