MCP Verification Gate: conformance and disclosure checker for MCP servers

Recompute a verdict hash without trusting the issuer

verify_verdict

Read-onlyIdempotent

Take a verdict this gate issued and recompute its record_sha256 independently. Removes record_sha256 and recompute_note, serialises the remainder in key order, and hashes it. Returns whether the verdict was altered after it was issued. You do not have to trust the party that issued the verdict, including this one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record`	Yes	The full verdict object as returned by check_conformance or GET /self

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`method`	No
`verified`	No	true = the verdict hashes to its own record_sha256, so it was not altered after issue. false = it was altered. This is a finding about the record, not an error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "method": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified": {
+      "description": "true = the verdict hashes to its own record_sha256, so it was not altered after issue. false = it was altered. This is a finding about the record, not an error.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds precise details: it removes record_sha256 and recompute_note, serialises the remainder, and hashes it. This fully discloses the operation and its result, leaving no ambiguity about side effects.

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?

The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the algorithm and outcome. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage, methodology, and return value. It explains the independent verification aspect and the trust premise. Even without an explicit output schema, the return behavior is clearly stated, making it complete for an agent to decide and use.

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?

The only parameter 'record' is fully described in the schema as 'The full verdict object as returned by check_conformance or GET /self'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the additional context about the expected source of the object adds value, making it a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to independently recompute the record_sha256 of a verdict and determine if it was altered. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_conformance and lookup_server by focusing on hash verification and trust independence.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to verify a verdict without trusting the issuer. It explains the process (removing fields, hashing) and indicates independent verification. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative approaches, though the context is clear enough.

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.