Attach execution receipts to an approved transaction for a tamper-proof audit trail. Verifies remediation actions without executing remote commands.
Bind execution receipts to an approved transaction; this package does not execute remote commands itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipts | Yes | ||
| transactionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: the tool does not execute remote commands itself. But it does not explain side effects, whether receipts are appended or replaced, persistence guarantees, or any authorization prerequisites beyond the word 'approved.'
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 efficient sentence with two clauses. Both earn their place: the first states the core purpose and the second clarifies a critical limitation. There is no filler or redundant restatement of 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?
Given two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It gives a general sense of purpose and one exclusion but does not cover workflow context, receipt format, return behavior, or failure conditions, so an agent would likely need additional information to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides high-level mapping: transactionId refers to an approved transaction and receipts are execution receipts. However, it does not describe the expected shape of the receipts array, whether receipts can be empty, or any constraints on transactionId, leaving the agent with insufficient parameter-level guidance.
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 ('bind') and a clear resource ('execution receipts to an approved transaction'), and it adds a distinguishing negative statement: 'this package does not execute remote commands itself.' This differentiates it from any execution-like sibling, though it does not fully position it against all siblings.
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 implies the tool is used after approval when receipts exist, and it explicitly excludes remote command execution as a use case. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over related actions like remediation_verify or remediation_record_rollback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.