Skip to main content
Glama
arian-gogani

Nobulex MCP Compliance Server

verify_log

Verify the integrity of hash-chained audit logs to detect tampering in the Nobulex MCP Compliance Server.

Instructions

Independently verify the integrity of the hash-chained audit log. Detects any tampering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:99-114 (registration)
    The verify_log tool is registered in src/index.ts. The handler calls auditLog.verify().
    server.tool(
      "verify_log",
      "Independently verify the integrity of the hash-chained audit log. Detects any tampering.",
      {},
      async () => {
        const result = auditLog.verify();
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • The implementation of verify() which performs the integrity check on the audit log.
    verify(): { valid: boolean; entries: number; error?: string } {
      if (this.entries.length === 0) {
        return { valid: true, entries: 0 };
      }
    
      for (let i = 0; i < this.entries.length; i++) {
        const entry = this.entries[i];
    
        // Check previousHash linkage
        const expectedPrev =
          i === 0 ? GENESIS_HASH : this.entries[i - 1].hash;
        if (entry.previousHash !== expectedPrev) {
          return {
            valid: false,
            entries: this.entries.length,
            error: `Entry ${i}: previousHash mismatch.`,
          };
        }
    
        // Recompute hash
        const { hash, ...rest } = entry;
        const recomputed = computeHash(rest);
        if (recomputed !== hash) {
          return {
            valid: false,
            entries: this.entries.length,
            error: `Entry ${i}: hash mismatch (tampering detected).`,
          };
        }
      }
    
      return { valid: true, entries: this.entries.length };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'verifies integrity' and 'detects tampering,' which implies a read-only, diagnostic operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like performance impact, error handling, or what happens if tampering is found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: 'Independently verify the integrity of the hash-chained audit log. Detects any tampering.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the outcome. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (verification of a hash-chained log), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral details like output format, error cases, or side effects. For a diagnostic tool with no structured support, it meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps in completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Independently verify the integrity of the hash-chained audit log. Detects any tampering.' It specifies the verb ('verify'), resource ('hash-chained audit log'), and outcome ('detects any tampering'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_audit_log' or 'check_action', which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'check_action' or 'get_audit_log', nor does it specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/arian-gogani/nobulex-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server