Verify the Ed25519 signature on a downloaded LICENSE.json, confirming it was genuinely issued by bookstore4agents and has not been altered. Pass the license object returned by download_book. Returns { valid, key_id }. You can also verify offline using the public key at /.well-known/bookstore4agents-pubkey.pem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| license | Yes | The LICENSE.json object from download_book's response |
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies signature authenticity and returns { valid, key_id }, and mentions offline capability. This covers key behavioral aspects for a verification tool.
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?
Three concise sentences: what it does, how to call it, and what it returns. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
For a single-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: the operation, input source, return value, and offline alternative. The agent can select and invoke it without ambiguity.
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?
The schema already describes the license parameter at 100% coverage, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds important semantics by specifying that the value must be the exact license object returned by download_book, not just any object.
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 verifies an Ed25519 signature on LICENSE.json, confirming genuine issuance and integrity. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like verification_status.
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?
Provides clear context: pass the `license` object returned by download_book, and offers an offline verification alternative. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.