verify_rotation_chainValidate all rotation signatures in a DID document's rotation log and return true only if the full cryptographic chain is valid.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contract (true when the full chain is valid), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it is silent on failure behavior (false vs. error), auth requirements, and cost.
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?
Two sentences, zero padding, with the operation and its target front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause 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 single-input read-only verification utility with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return semantics and the object being checked. It is only slightly short of complete because it does not specify what an invalid chain produces or any error conditions.
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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents did_document as a RotatableDIDDocument with a rotationLog. The description restates the same shape at a high level without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb (verify) and a precise resource (all rotation signatures in a DID document's rotation log), which clearly separates it from siblings like rotate_key, is_key_active, and the various other verify_* tools. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description (validate a rotation log before trusting a key history), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as rotate_key or is_key_active. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.