Skip to main content
Glama

EDNA — On-Device Human Sensing for AI

edna.get_verification_info

How to independently verify the engine (open protocol).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edna.get_verification_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionNoTest session id [a-zA-Z0-9_-]{1,64} — sensor bridge and AI client must use the SAME id. Omit to use the X-EDNA-Session header or the "default" session.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by calling the protocol open and describing independent verification, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth expectations, rate limits, or what the returned information looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It could be slightly more direct by saying it returns verification instructions rather than using the fragment 'How to...', but it is appropriately compact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter getter this is minimally adequate: it conveys the subject and scope of the information. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the expected return content and how the tool relates to sibling verification tools.

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 the session parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not mention or add meaning to that parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter-level explanation.

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 identifies the resource as verification information and scopes it to independently verifying the engine under an open protocol. That is clear enough to distinguish the tool's subject, but it does not differentiate it from verification-related siblings such as edna.get_human_proof or edna.id.verify_resume.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The phrase 'independently verify' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected over sibling verification tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.