get_seal_statusVerify sealed archive integrity by checking hash chains against stored files; optionally target a run and return OK or BREAK status to detect tampering.
Verify the sealed archive: hash chains against files. Use list_spans for run ids. Local files, no network. Returns <run> OK or <run> BREAK <kind> per run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | Span folder, e.g. 20261015-120000. Omit for every run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value with 'hash chains against files', the no-network constraint, and the exact return shape (OK vs BREAK <kind>) that no output schema provides.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the return format. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, the data source, and where to get the input id, which covers everything needed to invoke and interpret the call correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is well documented, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the useful pointer to list_spans for run ids and implies omitting the param verifies all runs.
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 and resource ('Verify the sealed archive') plus the mechanism ('hash chains against files'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list_spans, read_span and search_spans without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to list_spans to obtain run ids and notes the tool is 'Local files, no network'. It gives clear context for choosing this tool but doesn't state exclusions or when verification is unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.