verifyCheck receipt and result hashes plus the execution envelope against the reviewed catalog. This detects later modification; it does not prove publisher authenticity or current freshness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valid | Yes | ||
| checks | Yes | ||
| receipt_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool detects modification but does not verify authenticity or freshness. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and no contradiction is present.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information, front-loaded with the action and followed by important limitations. Every sentence adds value.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, limitations, and input semantics adequately, though more detail on the input object structure would improve completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'receipt and result hashes plus the execution envelope', but the input object structure is not fully explained. Baseline for single parameter with low coverage is 3.
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 title 'Verify an execution receipt' and description 'Check receipt and result hashes plus the execution envelope against the reviewed catalog' provide a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools 'execute' and 'search_data'.
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 explicitly states what the tool does not do ('does not prove publisher authenticity or current freshness') and its purpose (detect later modification), guiding the agent on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: execute retrieves data via a contract, search_data queries metadata, and verify checks integrity receipts. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case with a verb-first style (execute, search_data, verify). While not strictly verb_noun, the naming is predictable and consistent, though a less uniform pattern than the calibration example.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a public data catalog: search, retrieve, and verify. Each tool serves a necessary role with no bloat or missing core functionality.
The domain covers discovering, accessing, and validating public data. search_data finds datasets, execute retrieves them, and verify ensures integrity—covering the full workflow without obvious gaps.