verify_ownershipVerifies that a host's published ownership proof matches the configured secret, confirming control before authorized authorization tests run.
Check whether the ownership proof for a host is published and matches the configured secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network-reach profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — it fetches a published proof and compares it against a configured secret — but says nothing about behavior on network failure, missing configuration, or whether a successful check is cached.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and both check conditions stated up front. No filler, nothing to trim.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should convey what a result looks like; 'check whether' implies a boolean verdict but leaves ambiguity — is it a boolean, a status enum, or details on which of the two conditions failed? For a one-parameter verification tool this is about the minimum an agent needs to call it, but the return shape and failure semantics remain unspecified.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only echoes 'for a host'. The schema carries the pattern and length constraints but no human-readable meaning; the description adds nothing about whether host is a bare domain, a URL, or how it relates to the proof lookup location.
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 ('Check whether') and resource ('the ownership proof for a host') with the two concrete conditions evaluated: published and matching the configured secret. This is distinguishable from the sibling ownership_proof (which presumably produces a proof rather than verifying it), though the description does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrasing suggests a post-setup verification step after a proof has been published. It never says when to call this versus ownership_proof, nor states prerequisites such as a configured secret or DNS/TXT publication having been done.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.