sign_charterAdd a founding signature to a charter and re-sign its outer envelope with signer and resigner keys, creating verifiable cryptographic approval.
Add a founding signature to a charter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| charter_id | Yes | ||
| signer_role | No | board | |
| signer_public_key | Yes | ||
| signer_private_key | Yes | ||
| resigner_private_key | Yes | Key to re-sign the outer charter envelope |
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: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the word 'founding' and omits critical behavioral context: that this is an irreversible cryptographic signing action, that private keys are consumed, and what happens on re-signing the outer envelope.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is arguably over-terse for a 5-parameter cryptographic mutation tool. Efficient but under-informative.
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 high-complexity signing tool with 5 params (4 required), 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the signing flow, key roles, and the effect on the charter envelope.
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 description coverage is only 20% (just resigner_private_key), leaving charter_id, signer_role, signer_public_key, and signer_private_key undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, despite the sensitivity of passing private keys, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb (add signature) and resource (charter) with a clear qualifier ('founding'). It reasonably distinguishes the tool from siblings like sign_amendment and add_approval_signature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus create_charter, verify_charter, or sign_amendment, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an existing unsigned charter. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.