Verify all rotation signatures in a DID document's rotation log to confirm the full chain is cryptographically valid; returns true only if every signature checks out.
Verify all rotation signatures in a DID document's rotation log. Returns true if the full chain is cryptographically valid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did_document | Yes | RotatableDIDDocument JSON object with rotationLog |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "did_document"
+]v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return value (true if valid) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or what happens with malformed input. The verb 'verify' implies non-mutation, but side effects are not explicitly ruled out.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the return value. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 verification tool with one parameter and a boolean return, the description covers the essential behavior. The schema documents the input structure, and the return behavior is stated. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but the tool is simple enough that the description is adequately complete.
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% for the single parameter did_document, which is described as a 'RotatableDIDDocument JSON object with rotationLog'. The tool description adds minimal extra semantic meaning beyond referencing the rotation log, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Verify' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all rotation signatures in a DID document's rotation log'. It also states the expected return value, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling verification tools like verify_charter or verify_governance_block.
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 provides clear context: this tool is for validating the cryptographic integrity of a DID's rotation chain. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternative verification tools or list any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.