verify_audit_chainRecomputes every hash in the audit log to verify the chain is intact and report any integrity issues.
Recomputes every hash in the audit log and reports whether the chain is intact. Needs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | ||
| intact | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| last_seq | Yes | ||
| last_hash | Yes | ||
| checked_at | Yes | ||
| first_bad_seq | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it recomputes every hash, implying a full traversal of the audit log. It does not contradict annotations, and it clarifies that no input is required.
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 short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the no-input note is efficient and useful.
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?
Given zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly. It explains the action and outcome without needing to document return structure.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Needs nothing,' so an agent can confidently invoke the tool without preparing arguments.
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 ('recomputes every hash') and resource ('audit log') with a clear outcome ('reports whether the chain is intact'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_audit_log, which likely returns log entries rather than verifying integrity.
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 implies usage when you need to verify audit log integrity, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. 'Needs nothing' gives some context but not full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.