Frontier-Compute/zcash-mcp

zap1_prove_receipt

Retrieve a ZAP1 Merkle proof bundle for a leaf hash, including leaf, path, root, and anchor components.

Instructions

Fetch a ZAP1 Merkle proof bundle for a leaf hash. Returns the full proof: leaf, path, root, and anchor.

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": {
      "leaf_hash": "<leaf_hash>"
    },
    "name": "zap1_prove_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`leaf_hash`	Yes	Hex-encoded leaf hash (64 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0May 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only fetch operation and lists return components (leaf, path, root, anchor), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys the action and return value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description adequately covers input and output. However, without an output schema, more detail on the return structure or error handling would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for 'leaf_hash' already provided. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond restating the parameter's purpose, so no value added beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'ZAP1 Merkle proof bundle' for a 'leaf hash'. It distinguishes from siblings by being specific to proving receipts, while siblings like 'verify_proof' and 'zap1_create_receipt_invoice' serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'verify_proof' or 'zap1_create_receipt_invoice'. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.

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