Hash and label context integrity, confidentiality and source; 0.002 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "content": {
+ "fact": "public filing"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "confidentiality": "public",
+ "integrity": "untrusted",
+ "uri": "https://example.com"
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It reveals that the operation is paid (0.002 USDC), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, whether it writes or reads, rate limits, or reversibility. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The price is appended efficiently. It is appropriately sized for what it chooses to say, though under-specification elsewhere is captured in other dimensions.
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 no annotations, two required parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain when to choose this tool, what it does with the content, or how it relates to alternatives. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the operational context is largely missing.
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 100%, so the structured schema already documents parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description names the aspects being labeled (integrity, confidentiality, source), which aligns with the schema example fields and adds marginal interpretative value, but no syntax or format details beyond that.
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?
States specific verbs 'hash and label' and the resources 'context integrity, confidentiality and source', which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling provenance/security tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The only contextual hint is the price, which does not indicate when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like dependency_provenance_assessment or agent_memory_provenance.
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.