Get a registry snapshot with Merkle root for version pinning (C17). Reference-grade implementation. Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "attest_cargo_snapshot"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds caveats about being 'reference-grade' and 'wire format normative.' However, it does not explicitly state whether there are side effects, permissions, or any detailed return behavior beyond the Merkle root, leaving some ambiguity.
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 concise, composed of three short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, while the second and third add implementation context. The 'Reference-grade implementation' sentence is somewhat cryptic but still relevant. No unnecessary filler.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple getter: it states what is returned (registry snapshot with Merkle root) and the intended use. The 'Layer B' reference gives additional context about production readiness. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is sufficiently complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to elaborate. The description adds a little semantic context by mentioning the Merkle root and version pinning, which helps the agent understand what the tool produces, even though there is nothing to configure. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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's function: 'Get a registry snapshot with Merkle root for version pinning (C17).' It uses a specific verb, names a concrete resource (registry snapshot), and specifies the purpose (version pinning), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like attest_cargo_register or attest_cargo_validate.
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 gives a clear context for use: 'for version pinning (C17).' This indicates when to use the tool. It also hints at an exclusion with 'production-grade is Layer B,' implying this reference-grade implementation is not intended for production use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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.