verify_snapshotValidate immutable artifact sizes and SHA-256 hashes to confirm snapshot integrity, ensuring files remain unmodified and auditable for job application tracking.
Verify immutable artifact sizes and SHA-256 hashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Verify' and 'immutable' imply a non-mutating integrity check, but the description does not explain what happens on mismatch, where the expected hashes come from, or whether any state is modified.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter verification tool.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral edge cases leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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 does not clarify the snapshot_path parameter beyond its name. It does not explain what the path must point to, what format is expected, or whether it is a file or directory, so the agent gains no additional meaning from the description.
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 names a specific action ('Verify') and a concrete resource ('immutable artifact sizes and SHA-256 hashes'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like save_application_snapshot. It is concise and unambiguous, though 'artifact' could be slightly more explicit.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools, prerequisites, or typical verification scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.