Independently verify a ZK proof from a prior check_action call. Confirms the guardrail check was performed correctly without re-running it — any third party or monitoring agent can verify in under one second. No additional cost. Wait a few minutes after the check for the proof to be generated. Single-use per proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof_id | Yes | The proof_id returned by a prior check_action or check_action_paid call |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: verification is independent, takes under one second, has no additional cost, requires a waiting period, and is single-use. These details go well beyond basic purpose, giving the agent crucial operational context.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by essential usage details. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant content.
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 simple one-parameter design and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly state the return value (e.g., boolean), but the phrase 'Confirms the guardrail check was performed correctly' implies a confirmation result, which is a minor gap.
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 proof_id as the UUID from a prior check_action/check_action_paid call, but the description adds important semantics: it must come from a prior check, is single-use, and proof generation requires a wait. This extends the schema's meaning.
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 specific function: 'Independently verify a ZK proof from a prior check_action call.' It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('ZK proof'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying it confirms the check 'without re-running it'.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use it after a check_action call, wait a few minutes for proof generation, and it is single-use per proof. It also clarifies that verification is independent and can be done by any third party, effectively excluding re-running the original check.
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.