Burs-IA Utils

Verificar recibo de Burs-IA

recibo-verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifica un recibo: recalcula los SHA-256 de la entrada, la salida y el recibo canónicos (RFC 8785) y, con rerun, vuelve a ejecutar la herramienta. Sin firma: prueba consistencia, no origen. Sin rerun informa consistent, no valid. Cuándo: hay que comprobar que un recibo de Burs-IA es consistente con la entrada y la salida que declara, opcionalmente volviendo a ejecutar la herramienta. No para: calcular el resumen SHA-256 (hash-sha256). Efectos secundarios: ninguno (solo lectura, sin red, sin estado guardado). Determinista: la misma entrada da la misma salida. Límites: entrada JSON de hasta 64 KB, 1 s por llamada, resultado de hasta 1 MB.

EN: Checks a receipt (recibo): recomputes the SHA-256 of the RFC 8785 (JCS) canonical input, output and receipt, and with rerun re-runs the tool. Unsigned: proves consistency, not origin. Without rerun it reports consistent, not valid. [EN completo / full EN: inputSchema.description]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Tool name the receipt refers to (string; required; up to 64 chars).
`input`	Yes	Input exactly as sent (object; required).
`rerun`	No	Re-run the tool and compare outputs (boolean; optional; default true).
`output`	Yes	Result exactly as received (any JSON value; required).
`recibo`	Yes	The `recibo` object returned with the result (object; required).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`rerun`	No
`valid`	No
`checks`	No
`consistent`	No
`recomputed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / input / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "data": "hola"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / output / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "algorithm": "sha256",
+    "digest": "b221d9dbb083a7f33428d7c2a3c3198ae925614d70210e28716ccaa7cd4ddb79",
+    "encoding": "hex"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / tool / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "hash-sha256"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedNov 1, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"EN: Checks a receipt (recibo): recomputes the SHA-256 of the RFC 8785 (JCS) canonical input, output and receipt, and with rerun re-runs the tool. Unsigned: proves consistency, not origin. Without rerun it reports consistent, not valid. When: a Burs-IA receipt (recibo) has to be checked for consistency with the input and output it claims, optionally by re-running the tool. Not for: computing the SHA-256 digest (hash-sha256). Side effects: none (read-only, no network access, no stored state). Deterministic: the same input gives the same output. Limits: JSON input up to 64 KB, 1 s per call, result up to 1 MB."

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'Sin firma: prueba consistencia, no origen' and 'Sin rerun informa consistent, no valid' are security-relevant caveats an agent would otherwise get wrong, and the Limits block (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result) plus determinism statement are concrete operational constraints. Annotations already cover read-only/no-network, and the description still adds material context on top.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly labeled sections (Cuándo / No para / Efectos secundarios / Determinista / Límites) that each earn their place. The bilingual duplication — full ES text plus an EN pointer back to inputSchema.description — adds length without adding information for an agent reading both fields.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description still supplies the interpretation caveat ('consistent' ≠ 'valid'), the alternative tool, side-effect profile, determinism and hard limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining what `rerun` actually does to the verdict ('consistent' vs 'valid') and by framing `input`/`output`/`recibo` as 'exactly as sent/received' artefacts. It does not, however, document the nested recibo fields (signed, canonicalization, standard) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — recomputes SHA-256 over the RFC 8785 (JCS) canonical input, output and receipt and optionally re-runs the tool — and explicitly separates itself from hash-sha256. The 'recibo de Burs-IA' framing plus the hash-recomputation mechanics make it unambiguous what is being verified.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Contains explicit 'Cuándo' (check a Burs-IA receipt for consistency with its declared input/output, optionally re-running) and 'No para' (computing a SHA-256 digest — use hash-sha256) sections. The rerun/no-rerun trade-off is spelled out, so the agent knows the condition that selects each mode.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Burs-IA Utils tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?