Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VeritasGraph

VeritasGraph

by bibinprathap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

veritasgraph_get_answer_receipt

Fetch the receipt for a previous answer_id to review evidence IDs, grounding, the graph version used, whether the graph changed since, and feedback.

Instructions

Fetch the receipt for a previous answer_id: evidence ids, grounding, the graph version it used, whether the graph changed since, and feedback.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answer_id": "<answer_id>"
    },
    "name": "veritasgraph_get_answer_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answer_idYesThe answer_id from veritasgraph_query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the substantive return contents (evidence ids, grounding, graph version, staleness since, feedback). It stops short of stating error behavior for missing ids or any access constraints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One front-loaded sentence with a compact list of returned fields; every element is informative. The list-in-a-sentence format is slightly dense but not padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, explaining what the receipt contains is the critical missing piece and it is covered. Only failure modes and permission expectations are left unaddressed.

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% and the schema description already ties answer_id to veritasgraph_query, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch the receipt for a previous answer_id") with the key fields it returns, which distinguishes it from graph/entity/ontology getters. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the tie to veritasgraph_query output makes its role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by "for a previous answer_id" — i.e., call this after veritasgraph_query produced an answer. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about what happens for an unknown/expired answer_id.

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