Taifoon coordination layer

taifoon_proof

Verify a block under the SuperRoot (the class proof.verify.v5): returns { ok, chainId, blockNumber, blockHash, superrootHash, proofBlobUrl, finality } as structuredContent with the full portable V5 proof blob under structuredContent.blob — six layers from block to superroot, finality-typed (L6). Carry the blob off-chain; verify it on-chain via verifyEncoded. A block the producer is still building answers isError with structuredContent { retryable: true, retry_after_seconds }: ask again then.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain_id`	Yes	Chain id (e.g. 1 Ethereum, 8453 Base, 21000000 Bitcoin)
`block_number`	Yes	Block number on that chain

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`blob`	Yes	the full V5 proof blob (null on a retryable answer)
`chainId`	No
`finality`	No
`blockHash`	Yes
`retryable`	No	true when the producer is still building this proof: nothing failed, ask again after retry_after_seconds
`blockNumber`	No
`proofBlobUrl`	Yes
`superrootHash`	Yes
`retry_after_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / blob / description

Previous value: -"the full V5 proof blob"New value: +"the full V5 proof blob (null on a retryable answer)"

changedOutput schema / properties / blob / type

Previous value: -"object"New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / retry_after_seconds
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / retryable

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true when the producer is still building this proof: nothing failed, ask again after retry_after_seconds",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it names the structured return fields, the portable V5 proof blob location, the six-layer structure, finality typing, off-chain carriage, and the retryable error shape with retry_after_seconds. It still omits permission requirements and rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then covers blob portability and retry behavior. Some clauses are packed into a single sentence, but every statement carries relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully surfaces the structuredContent, blob, and retryable error behavior. It is largely complete for a complex proof-verification call, though it could mention auth or rate-limit constraints.

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 coverage is 100%, so chain_id and block_number are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a block under the SuperRoot' and names the proof class 'proof.verify.v5'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as taifoon_proof_tx or taifoon_superroot, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool is used (verifying a block proof) and adds retry guidance for blocks still being built. However, it never names alternative tools or states when not to use this one versus taifoon_proof_tx or taifoon_superroot.

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

All Taifoon coordination layer tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?