Return the signed attestation record alone for a tome: quality grade, security scan grade and flags, decay risk, source registry, the content hash it is bound to, and the signing key id for offline verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | GitHub repository name. | |
| owner | Yes | GitHub owner or org. | |
| skill_path | No | Address a specific skill within the repo, e.g. skills/foo. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds value by specifying what the attestation record contains (quality grade, security scan, etc.) and mentions offline verification, going beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence that efficiently lists fields, but it is slightly dense; could be split for clarity but no wasted words.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must fully explain the return value; it lists fields but lacks structure or types, and no error conditions are mentioned. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 100% with clear parameter descriptions; the tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Return the signed attestation record alone for a tome' with a specific verb and resource, and lists exact fields, distinguishing it from siblings like get_tome and verify_attestation.
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?
The description implies usage for 'offline verification' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor contrasts with alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
