Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CCS Verifier MCP Server

CCS Verifier MCP Server

by DSHCorrectover
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_verifier_info

Retrieve the CCS verifier's version, specification details, and usage statistics to confirm compatibility and monitor verification activity.

Instructions

Get information about the CCS verifier (version, spec, usage stats)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_verifier_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it implies a side-effect-free informational read by listing metadata fields, but never states read-only status, whether auth is needed, or whether any cost/rate limit applies. For a zero-parameter lookup the risk is low, so the omission is a gap rather than a hazard.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is terse to the point that the abbreviation "CCS" and the vague "usage stats" are left undefined.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description should describe the shape of the returned data, but it only names three field categories and leaves "usage stats" and "spec" unspecified. An agent knows what the tool is for but not exactly what it will receive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The parenthetical does add useful signal about what comes back.

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 gives a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("information about the CCS verifier") and enumerates the content returned (version, spec, usage stats), which is enough to separate it from verify_receipt and generate_test_receipt. It stops short of 5 because "CCS" is unexplained jargon an agent may not resolve.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools that could be confused with it. Usage is only inferable from the name and the fact that it takes no parameters.

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