Rubric Protocol MCP Server

verify

Validate an attestation by checking the local store first, then federation, with Merkle inclusion and HCS anchoring to confirm integrity.

Instructions

Verify an attestation. Checks local store first, then federation. Merkle inclusion + HCS anchoring.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "attestation_id": "<attestation_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`attestation_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: a local-store lookup followed by federation fallback, and Merkle inclusion plus HCS anchoring as the verification method. It omits what a negative result looks like, whether verification is read-only, and any latency or failure semantics for a cross-federation lookup.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by lookup order and method. Nothing is padded, though the 'Merkle inclusion + HCS anchoring' fragment is jargon that may not resolve for an unfamiliar agent.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the verification path but not the identifier format or the shape of the verdict returned. It is adequate to start but leaves the agent short on both input construction and expected outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the schema gives no guidance on attestation_id. The description does not state whether this is a hash, UUID, or registry-qualified identifier, leaving the agent no way to construct a valid value.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (attestation), which is clearly narrower than siblings like attest or register_agent. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling verify_audit, so an agent must guess which verifier applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The sentence 'Checks local store first, then federation' describes internal ordering, not the conditions under which an agent should pick this tool over verify_audit or get_proof.

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

Deploy Server