Return the index of all CausalLayer Tessera anchor batches, or one batch's full JSON (signed Merkle root, leaves, OpenTimestamps proof reference). FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Optional anchor version, e.g. '2026-05-16-v1.6.4-simulation-calibration'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return types (index or full JSON) and the JSON contents (signed Merkle root, leaves, OpenTimestamps proof reference), but does not explicitly state safety (read-only) or other behavioral traits like side effects or potential empty results.
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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then delivers the two modes and key JSON fields without 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior and contents. It lacks details like response format for the index (e.g., array of versions) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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% (version is described). The description adds semantic value by implying that the optional version parameter distinguishes between retrieving all batches (index) and a single batch (full JSON), which is not fully explicit in the schema alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('CausalLayer Tessera anchor batches') with clear modes: index of all batches or one batch's full JSON. This differentiates it from siblings like verify_certificate and query_issuer_registry, which serve distinct purposes.
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 (when you need anchor batch data, use this tool) and adds 'FREE' as a hint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or list any exclusions. It provides clear context but lacks direct alternative differentiation.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but submit_incident and submit_otel_trace both create certificates from different input sources, and verify_certificate and verify_certificate_recompute both verify but via different methods. Descriptions and input types make them distinguishable, so ambiguity is low.
All names use snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., submit_incident, verify_certificate). Deviations like verify_certificate_recompute (verb_noun_modifier) and evaluate_prospective_response (verb_adjective_noun) are minor and remain predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and maps cleanly to the domain: incident submission, text extraction, pre-response gating, certificate verification, remediation simulation, jurisdiction analysis, and issuer/anchor metadata queries. Each tool serves a distinct workflow step without redundancy.
The core lifecycle (extract → submit → verify → analyze) is well covered. However, several tools reference external catalog endpoints (e.g., /jurisdiction/catalog, /remediation/catalog, /gate/thresholds) that are not exposed as MCP tools, forcing an agent to make separate HTTP calls to use these tools effectively. This is a minor workaround, not a critical gap.