Skip to main content
Glama

verify_audit_bundle

Verify an audit bundle offline to detect tampering: re-walks hash chains from genesis, matches signed anchor, and checks witnesses. Returns verdict with checks, problems, and limits.

Instructions

OFFLINE verification of an audit_bundle() — needs only the bundle (no store, no key). Re-walks both hash-chains from genesis, matches the tips/counts to the signed anchor, and (with witnesses) checks external co-signatures. Returns {ok, checks, problems, limits, summary}; any post-export tamper fails it.

CONTENT: the bundle carries hashes and never text, so a clean chain over SUBSTITUTED text verifies here — exactly what an out-of-band edit plus a legitimate amendment produces. store_path (the store file the bundle was taken from) re-derives each record's commitment against the earliest receipt covering it, and summary.content_checked then says True. Without it the verdict still returns and limits says in words that content was not examined.

This surface had no way to pass it: limits told the auditor to "pass store_items=", a parameter that did not exist here, so over MCP the answer was always the content-blind one. A missing store_path is REFUSED rather than silently downgraded — opening a store creates it, so a mistyped path would otherwise hand back a clean verdict over an empty store the call had just made.

expected_pubkey is the key you hold OUT OF BAND. Without it the chain signatures can only be checked against a key carried inside this same artifact, which proves the writer owned a keypair and not which one — so the verdict says PRESENT BUT UNVERIFIED rather than passing. This parameter did not exist here either, so over MCP the pinned check was unreachable in both directions. require_signed=True turns an unsigned or unverified chain into a failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleYes
thresholdNo
witnessesNo
store_pathNo
require_signedNo
expected_pubkeyNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses subtle behaviors: post-export tamper fails, SUBSTITUTED text may verify, missing store_path is REFUSED rather than downgraded, expected_pubkey from out-of-band is needed for real verification, and present-but-unverified outcome. This goes well beyond annotations (none provided) and explains failure modes and security implications.

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?

The description is long and dense but each paragraph earns its place, covering key security behaviors and parameter semantics. It front-loads the core offline verification purpose. Slight deduct for wordiness and a somewhat rambling historical note about the MCP surface, which could be tightened.

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 complex security-sensitive tool with 6 params, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains the return tuple {ok, checks, problems, limits, summary}, the content-check caveat, the pubkey verification limitation, and the refusal behavior. An agent can safely invoke this tool and interpret its results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for 6 parameters. It explains bundle (the artifact), witnesses (external co-signatures), store_path (re-derives commitments against earliest receipt), expected_pubkey (out-of-band key), require_signed (turns unverified into failure). threshold is not explicitly explained but the rest are well covered, compensating for zero schema descriptions.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as offline verification of audit_bundle() with specific steps: re-walking hash-chains, matching tips/counts to signed anchor, and checking witnesses. It differentiates from siblings like verify_consistency, verify_cosigned_anchor, and audit_the_audits by emphasizing OFFLINE and no store/no key needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use: for offline verification with only a bundle. It also explains what happens without store_path, expected_pubkey, and require_signed, guiding when to set those parameters. It names the limitation of the previous surface and how to avoid content-blind verdicts.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DanceNitra/inspeximus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server