agent-passport-system-mcp

Check Projection Consistency

aps_check_projection_consistency

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify whether two AttributionProjections come from the same signed receipt. Returns same_receipt true or false, with reasons like different actions, receipts, signatures, or metadata.

Instructions

Cross-projection consistency check: given two projections, confirm they originate from the same signed receipt. Returns {same_receipt: true} or {same_receipt: false, reason: 'DIFFERENT_ACTIONS'|'DIFFERENT_RECEIPTS'|'DIFFERENT_SIGNATURES'|'METADATA_MISMATCH'}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projection_a": "<projection_a>",
      "projection_b": "<projection_b>"
    },
    "name": "aps_check_projection_consistency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projection_a`	Yes	First AttributionProjection
`projection_b`	Yes	Second AttributionProjection

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv4.0.0Aug 1, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "projection_a",
+  "projection_b"
+]

Addedv2.8.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by spelling out the two return shapes and enumerating the four failure reasons, which is important since no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return contract. No wasted prose, though the reason enum makes the second sentence dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only two-input check with no output schema, the description covers the operation and return values including every failure reason. It is nearly complete; only the nature/format of an AttributionProjection is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema only labels the fields ('First/Second AttributionProjection'). The description confirms both inputs are projections but adds no format, ordering, or validity constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('two projections originate from the same signed receipt'), making the cross-projection check distinct from the many sibling verify_* tools. It does not explicitly name which sibling it replaces, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'cross-projection consistency check' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison against adjacent tools like aps_verify_attribution_projection or aps_check_artifact_citations. An agent must infer the scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server