Verify a Glyt receipt against the exact action you are about to run. Returns {valid, decision, acr, not_after, reasons}. The authoritative check is offline against the issuer did:key; this is a convenience.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| receipt | Yes | The receipt envelope object or its JSON string. | |
| required_acr | No | ||
| expected_agent_sub | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return object and notes the offline authoritative check, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., non-mutating) or permission requirements, 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return structure is efficiently listed.
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?
The description provides the return fields and key context (offline authoritative check) but lacks explanation of the optional parameters and decision/error semantics. Given no output schema and low annotation support, it is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is only 25%. The description clarifies the roles of 'action' and 'receipt' but does not explain 'required_acr' or 'expected_agent_sub'. The return field 'acr' hints at required_acr but no explicit linkage is made, leaving key parameters underspecified.
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 with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('a Glyt receipt against the exact action you are about to run'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_receipt and check_approval by emphasizing pre-action verification.
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 conveys when to use the tool ('about to run') and adds context about the authoritative offline check being separate from this convenience wrapper. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.