Validate a signed clearance token to confirm human approval and retrieve its scope, budget, and expiry. Check validity before acting on an agent's spending permission.
Verify a signed clearance token via GET /v1/verify/{token}. No authentication is required by the API. Returns valid, clearance_id, scope, budget, approved_at, expires_at, and error when invalid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The JWT returned when a clearance was approved |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses that no authentication is required, that the operation is a GET (implying a non-mutating read), and that failures surface through an 'error' field rather than throwing. The main remaining gap is status-code or rate-limit behavior, plus whether an invalid token still returns HTTP 200.
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, both front-loaded: the action and endpoint come first, followed by the return contract. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the tool name.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it needs no auth, and the exact fields returned including the error case. It falls just short of a 5 because failure modes (HTTP status, malformed vs expired token) are not distinguished.
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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already explains that the token is the JWT returned on approval. The description adds only that the token is a path segment in /v1/verify/{token}, which is a marginal increment — baseline 3 applies.
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 pairs a specific verb ('verify') with a specific resource ('signed clearance token') and even names the underlying endpoint GET /v1/verify/{token}. That makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like clearances_get, clearances_approve, or clearances_revoke, which all operate on clearances rather than tokens.
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 implied rather than stated: verifying a token returned by an approval is clearly a read-only validation step, and the note that the endpoint requires no authentication helps an agent know it can call it without credentials. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over clearances_get, nor any precondition or exclusion stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.