bcos_verifyVerify a BCOS v2 certificate by supplying its certificate ID to confirm authenticity and validity on the RustChain blockchain.
Verify a BCOS v2 certificate by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cert_id | Yes | The certificate ID to verify (e.g., "bcos_abc123...") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'verify', which hints at a read-only operation, but does not explain what verification entails, whether it checks trust/revocation, what failure modes exist, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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, well-front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. For a one-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: an agent can call it given a cert_id. However, it lacks any guidance on where certificate IDs come from or how this tool relates to bcos_directory, and the absence of annotations leaves behavioral context incomplete.
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?
The input schema already fully documents cert_id with type and an example, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that verification is 'by its ID', so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a concrete resource ('a BCOS v2 certificate') and a clear scope ('by its ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling bcos_directory tool, which likely handles lookup/listing rather than verification.
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 gives no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives, how to obtain a certificate ID, or whether bcos_directory should be used first. No exclusion criteria or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.