Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
debary-mcp-compliance

debary-mcp-compliance

Official
by DE-BARY-LLC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Fetch a stored receipt

get_receipt
Read-only

Retrieve a stored compliance check receipt with its blockchain anchor, enabling independent verification of what was checked and which rule version applied.

Instructions

Retrieve a stored check receipt, including its anchoring block if one exists.

A receipt records what was checked, against which rule version, and the SHA-256 of the exact text. Where an anchor is present, that digest was written to a public ledger by a signer that does not run on the gate -- so the record can be shown to a third party without asking them to trust the server that produced it.

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": {
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receipt_idYesReceipt id, e.g. c32520ab8cd8

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description explains what a receipt records, the SHA-256 digest, and the anchoring ledger property. It also discloses conditional behavior ('if one exists') and the trust rationale, which are meaningful details not present in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences add relevant context about receipt contents and anchoring without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the conceptual complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's semantics, return contents, and an important edge case (anchor absent). There is no obvious invocation gap, and the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, receipt_id, including an example value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, keeping it at the 3 baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('stored check receipt'), and adds the key conditional 'including its anchoring block if one exists.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like check_listing, which suggests enumeration, and explain_rule/suggest_rewrite, which are rule-focused.

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?

The description implies the tool is for fetching a single receipt by ID, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over check_listing or mentions alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name, title, and schema rather than receiving direct when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools