Verify a delivered relay evidence package by checking all artifacts, hashes, and references, then open its viewer in the browser for pending human review.
Verify a delivered relay evidence package (all artifacts, hashes and references) and open its viewer in the local human-facing browser. Human review remains pending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | Yes | The package directory, absolute or relative to the project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions verifying and opening a viewer, but does not disclose that opening a browser is a side effect, nor does it state whether the operation is read-only or modifies state. The phrase 'Human review remains pending' hints at state but is insufficient. The lack of safety or side-effect disclosure is a notable gap for a tool that opens a local browser.
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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action (verify) and immediately states the secondary action (open viewer) and a state note. Every word earns its place.
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?
While the tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, viewer URL) or any prerequisites (e.g., the package must already be delivered). It also omits any mention of side effects. For a tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the result, and it does not.
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 100% and the schema description for 'directory' already explains it is the package directory. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. No further parameter elaboration is needed.
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 clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'delivered relay evidence package', and it also mentions opening the viewer. This distinguishes it from siblings relay and relay_status, which likely handle creation/status respectively, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 when to use it: to verify a delivered package and open the viewer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like relay_status for checking status. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on selecting this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.