Lists append-only hash-chained audit receipts and verifies chain integrity, returning only IDs and hashes—never content—for auditable governed access.
List the append-only, hash-chained receipts and verify the chain. Receipts carry IDs + hashes only — never content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful traits: the append-only/hash-chained nature, that verification occurs during the call, and that returned data excludes content. It omits what a failed verification looks like, whether it errors or reports, and pagination behavior.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the key data-shape caveat front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
For a one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers return data shape well, but leaves the verification outcome semantics and the meaning of 'limit' unexplained. Adequate, 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?
The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description — no default, maximum, or meaning (page size vs. record cap). The description adds nothing beyond the bare schema property name.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List the ... receipts') and adds defining properties (append-only, hash-chained, verification). The clause 'IDs + hashes only — never content' implicitly separates it from record_read/record_search, though no sibling is named outright.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among record_read, record_search, or policy_show. An agent can infer auditing/verification intent, but nothing tells it when this is preferable to the record_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.