verifyProvenanceChainRe-derives every hash in the provenance log and reports whether the trail was modified, returning the first inconsistency found.
Re-derives every hash in the provenance log and reports whether the trail has been modified since it was written. Returns the first inconsistency found, if any.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it re-derives every hash and returns the first inconsistency found, rather than merely checking a stored flag.
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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core mechanism is front-loaded, followed by the return behavior.
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?
With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to understand what invoking the tool does. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return shape for both clean and inconsistent chains, but the essential behavior is covered.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.
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?
The description states a specific action and object: re-deriving hashes in the provenance log and reporting whether the trail was modified. It is precise enough for an agent to distinguish this integrity-verification tool from the unrelated sibling retrieval tools.
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?
The description clearly implies the tool should be used to check whether a provenance trail has been tampered with. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling performs a comparable verification function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.