audit.statusVerifies the signed audit ledger’s persistence, storage path, chain integrity, and public key so agents can confirm ledger status before relying on records.
Signed audit ledger: persistence, path, chain verification, public key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not state whether this is read-only, what permissions are required, or whether 'chain verification' means the tool performs verification or simply reports its status. It lists likely data facets without describing operational 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?
The description is very short and avoids waste, but it reads as a cryptic noun-phrase fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement. It is concise without being immediately actionable.
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?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. Still, with no annotations and ambiguous differentiation from audit.anchor_status, it is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and why to call it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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?
The description names the resource, a signed audit ledger, and several facets such as persistence, path, chain verification, and public key. However, it does not state a clear verb or say whether the tool retrieves status, verifies the chain, or reports metadata, leaving it hard to distinguish from audit.anchor_status.
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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than siblings like audit.anchor or audit.anchor_status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.