verify_aps_txtValidates a signed aps.txt file by checking its Ed25519 signature and DID consistency using the publisher's public key.
Verify a signed aps.txt file by checking its signature and DID consistency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | aps.txt JSON content | |
| publicKey | Yes | Publisher's Ed25519 public key (hex) |
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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that it checks signature and DID consistency, which is useful, but omits error behavior, authentication requirements, and what constitutes a valid result.
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 tightly scoped sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. 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?
For a simple two-parameter verification tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what a successful or failed verification returns, leaving a notable gap for an agent interpreting results.
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%, so the schema already documents both content and publicKey. The description adds only that content is a signed aps.txt and publicKey is used for signature verification, which is marginal beyond the schema.
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?
States the specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'signed aps.txt file', and clarifies the checks performed (signature and DID consistency). It does not differentiate from the many sibling verify_* tools, but the aps.txt resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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?
Implies usage when a signed aps.txt needs verification, but offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives to sibling tools like generate_aps_txt or other verify_* functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.