Rubric Protocol MCP Server

verify_audit

Independently audits a Rubric attestation by checking its signature, HCS sequence, and mirror-node confirmation, then returns a signed verdict with a new attestation ID.

Instructions

PAID ($0.002 USDC): independent audit of a Rubric attestation - signature, HCS sequence, mirror-node confirmation - returning a signed verdict with its own attestation ID.

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_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`attestation_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the cost ($0.002 USDC) and that the call has a side effect - issuing a new signed attestation with its own ID - plus what is verified. It stops short of explaining how payment is transacted, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens when verification fails.

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?

A single dense sentence with the cost front-loaded so an agent sees the paid nature before committing. Every clause carries information - price, scope, checks, return value. Slightly over-packed with hyphenated list items, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return: a signed verdict plus a new attestation ID. For a one-parameter tool this is largely sufficient, though the payment mechanism and failure behavior remain unaddressed for a tool that is explicitly paid.

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 description coverage is 0% with a single required 'attestation_id' parameter. The description adds meaning by scoping that ID to a 'Rubric attestation' and clarifying it is what is audited, but gives no format, provenance, or validity constraints for the identifier.

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 names a specific verb (independent audit) and resource (a Rubric attestation) and enumerates the three checks performed: signature, HCS sequence, mirror-node confirmation. That is far more concrete than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'verify' tool, which an agent would reasonably assume does something similar.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'independent' plus the price tag suggests this is the heavier, paid verification path versus a lighter sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and critically no guidance on choosing between this and the sibling 'verify' tool.

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

Deploy Server