Trust verdict for a Gitlawb peer DID (did:key Ed25519). Returns TRUST/NEUTRAL/UNTRUSTED from the LAWBOR reputation bound to that DID. Unbound DID = UNTRUSTED (zero-cost identity). Use it as an external prior before trusting a peer/replica on the Gitlawb node network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | did:key:z6Mk… (Ed25519). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return values and behavior for unbound DIDs (UNTRUSTED), which is the key behavioral trait. Missing details on side effects or prerequisites, but as a read-only query this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose and return types, then adds usage guidance. Excellent brevity.
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 low complexity (single param, no output schema, no annotations) the description fully covers what the tool does, its return values, and special case (unbound DID). Could mention if it requires network access, but fine as is.
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 already covers the parameter with 100% description, but the description adds meaning by explaining the DID type (did:key Ed25519) and its role in the trust verdict, including the unbound mapping.
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?
Specific verb 'Trust verdict' with resource 'peer DID' and explicit return values (TRUST/NEUTRAL/UNTRUSTED). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lawbor_repo_trust which likely deals with repos, not peer DIDs.
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?
Explicitly advises to 'Use it as an external prior before trusting a peer/replica', providing clear context for when to employ the tool. Does not mention alternatives but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.