Skip to main content
Glama
balaianu

CogZ

by balaianu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

verify_knowledge

Re-verify a knowledge entity against referenced code to reset verified_against provenance, clear drift annotations, and reactivate stale entities after confirming accuracy.

Instructions

Re-verify a knowledge entity against its referenced code — re-stamps verified_against provenance, clears drift annotations, and reactivates the entity if it was stale. Use after reading drift-flagged or stale knowledge and confirming it is still accurate — not for changing content (use update_knowledge instead).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUUID of the knowledge entity to verify.
repoYesAbsolute path to the project root containing `.cogz/`.
allow_dead_refsNoReactivate even when some references are dead — asserts the claim holds despite missing anchors.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_dead_refs
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Reactivate even when some references are dead — asserts the\nclaim holds despite missing anchors.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.6

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutation that rewrites provenance, clears drift state, and can reactivate a stale entity. It omits permission requirements and whether the reactivation is reversible, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and its effects, the second routes the agent on usage and the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes, when to call it, and what not to use. It could say more about the resulting state or failure modes (e.g. dead references), but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, including a detailed description of allow_dead_refs ('reactivate even when some references are dead'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of reactivating stale entities loosely connects to that flag but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (re-verify) plus resource (knowledge entity) and enumerates the concrete effects: re-stamping verified_against provenance, clearing drift annotations, and reactivating stale entities. It also distinguishes itself from update_knowledge, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('after reading drift-flagged or stale knowledge and confirming it is still accurate') and the exclusion ('not for changing content'), pointing to update_knowledge as the alternative. Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools