Verify run integrity by recomputing node hashes and Ed25519 signatures end-to-end. Returns validity status, node count, head hash, first invalid node ID, and reason.
Verify the cryptographic proof chain for a run — recomputes node hashes and Ed25519 signatures end-to-end. Returns {valid, node_count, head_hash, first_invalid_node_id, reason}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: end-to-end hash and signature recomputation, plus the exact return shape including first_invalid_node_id and reason. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The action and main behavior are front-loaded, and the return structure is listed compactly. Every sentence contributes.
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?
Given the single parameter, read-only annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently equips an agent: it explains what happens, what is returned, and how invalid chains are surfaced. It omits potential error conditions and differentiation from invariance_verify_run, but remains largely complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema only defines 'id' as a string, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning by indicating the id refers to a 'run', but provides no format, provenance, or required-value details. For a single obvious parameter this is adequate, though it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Verify'), names the resource ('cryptographic proof chain for a run'), and details what verification entails (recomputing node hashes and Ed25519 signatures). It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling invariance_verify_run.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a run's cryptographic proof chain needs verification. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, and given the near-identical sibling invariance_verify_run, an agent gets no guidance on how to choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.