Skip to main content
Glama

valem

by io.github.vlad-public-code

Verify audit trail

verify_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the tamper-evidence hash chain of a model's durable audit trail. Returns {valid, recordsChecked, firstBrokenSequence, detail}; a false 'valid' points at the first altered/reordered/deleted record. (Embedded mode has no hash chain and reports valid.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe model id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validNoTrue when the whole chain is intact.
detailNoHuman-readable explanation ('ok' when valid).
recordsCheckedNoNumber of records examined.
firstBrokenSequenceNoSequence of the first broken record, or null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the exact return structure, explains the meaning of a false 'valid', and calls out the embedded-mode special case where no hash chain exists. This is valuable behavioral detail the annotations do not provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is brief, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It provides the essential behavior, the return shape, the interpretation, and an important edge case without wasted words.

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?

The tool has only one documented parameter, output schema is available, and the description covers both the normal behavior and the embedded-mode special case. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and to interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already described as 'The model id.' The description reinforces that this id refers to a specific model's audit trail but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('tamper-evidence hash chain of a model's durable audit trail'), and explains the result semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit or get_history, which would retrieve rather than verify.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description clearly conveys what the operation checks, and the embedded-mode caveat adds useful context. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over get_audit or get_history, so the usage guidance relies on inference rather than direct instruction.

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

All valem toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_audit explicitly subsumes get_history and explain, and get_state with paths overlaps get_field, creating minor selection ambiguity. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still reach for the wrong getter.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent: snake_case with verb_noun structure and coherent get_/create_/delete_ clusters. Minor deviations like bare verbs (mutate, explain, restore, snapshot) and eval instead of evaluate prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

27 tools is above the comfortable range and feels heavy, especially with several overlapping audit/state getters that could be consolidated. That said, the domain is broad enough that the count is defensible, so it is heavy but not chaotic.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full model lifecycle well: create, validate, test, mutate, evolve, read, delete, plus snapshot/restore, audit, blobs, views, library, and expression evaluation. Minor gaps like explicit export/import or separate view-management tools are workable around.

Resources