Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Loom

Loom

by MlkBlk-IT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Ctx Verify

ctx_verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify source integrity by rebuilding each source from its chunks and comparing the SHA-256 hash against the value stored at ingest.

Instructions

Verify source integrity by rebuilding each source from its chunks.

For every stored source, reconstructs the original bytes from its chunks (in chunk-id order, through the normal read path) and compares SHA-256 to the value stored at ingest time.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ctx_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add useful behavioral detail: it rebuilds every stored source through the normal read path in chunk-id order and compares against the SHA-256 stored at ingest time. It still omits operational characteristics such as expected cost on large stores and how mismatches affect the result, though an output schema exists.

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?

The description is two focused sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the verification mechanism. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The core verification behavior is explained well, and the output schema plus annotations cover return shape and safety semantics. However, the optional session_id is left completely unexplained and there is no routing guidance against siblings like ctx_check or ctx_health. Those omissions matter for an agent deciding whether to run a potentially expensive integrity scan.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The sole parameter, session_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'for every stored source' may imply a global scan, but it is unclear whether session_id scopes the verification to one session or is ignored. With no parameter explanation, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify source integrity by rebuilding each source from its chunks.' It also explains the verification mechanism (reconstruct bytes and compare SHA-256), which is more specific than the title. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from verification-adjacent siblings such as ctx_check or ctx_health, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus ctx_check, ctx_health, or ctx_stats. It also does not say whether this is intended after ingest, during troubleshooting, or as a periodic audit. Usage is only implied by the word 'verify.'

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools