MCP Verification Gate: conformance and disclosure checker for MCP servers

Get the conformance conditions

get_conditions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the five conditions this gate measures, what it explicitly does not verify, and the tier definitions. Takes no arguments and returns identical output every time. Read this before running a check so you know what a verdict does and does not claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tiers`	No
`conditions`	No
`not_verified`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Deterministic. Takes no arguments, looks nothing up, and returns the same document every time. It therefore declares no read-state field, and a structural probe will score it as unable to hold the difference between a failed read and an empty one. That score is correct and is left standing: this tool has no read to fail. Adding a state field it can never use would make the number look better and mean less.",
+  "properties": {
+    "conditions": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "object"
+      ]
+    },
+    "not_verified": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "object",
+        "string"
+      ]
+    },
+    "tiers": {
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "object"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that it 'Takes no arguments and returns identical output every time,' reinforcing idempotency. It also reveals the return content includes what the gate 'explicitly does not verify,' which goes beyond the safety profile into semantic content.

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?

Two sentences; the first front-loads the core content, the second gives temporal usage guidance. No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is static and parameterless, with a rich output schema. The description covers what is returned, invariant behavior, and when to read it, making it complete for an AI agent's selection and invocation needs.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' aligning with the schema. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is fully sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource: 'the five conditions this gate measures, what it explicitly does not verify, and the tier definitions.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_conformance or verify_verdict, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly instructs to 'Read this before running a check so you know what a verdict does and does not claim,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when-not to use it, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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

All MCP Verification Gate: conformance and disclosure checker for MCP servers tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.