Runs all accepted verification commands (up to 8) to confirm completed work. Accepts command strings or executable/args/cwd objects for output validation.
Run all accepted verification commands (max 8). Entries are strings or {executable,args,cwd}. Requires INTEROP_ALLOW_VERIFICATION=1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| workId | Yes | ||
| commands | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already communicate that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating an allowlist-style constraint ('accepted'), a hard limit of 8 commands, and an explicit environment-gate requirement. This goes beyond what the annotations and schema alone provide.
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 short sentences deliver the core action, command format constraint, max count, and required environment variable with no filler. The most important operational facts are front-loaded.
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 command-execution tool with no output schema, the description omits important details: what workId refers to, what the return value looks like, how success or failure is signaled, and what 'accepted' means in practice. The env-var requirement and max-8 limit are useful, but an agent is left with material gaps.
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 0%, and the description only restates that commands are strings or objects with executable/args/cwd, which the schema already exposes structurally. It does not explain the purpose of the required workId, the top-level cwd, or how each command variant behaves, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 states a concrete action—'Run all accepted verification commands'—and gives a limiting constraint, 'max 8', plus the entry format. This clearly identifies the tool's resource without needing to open the schema. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 focuses on what the tool does rather than when to use it or which alternative to choose. It mentions a required environment variable, INTEROP_ALLOW_VERIFICATION=1, which is a prerequisite, but gives no guidance on when this tool is preferable to sibling tools or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.