vibe-hardware-mcp

calligraphy_purge_job_vault

Immediately shred all enclave CAD and synthesis artifacts for a specified job ID and return a cryptographically signed Certificate of Destruction verifying zero retention.

Instructions

Immediately shred all enclave CAD and synthesis artifacts for job_id and return a cryptographically signed CertificateOfDestruction (zero_retention_verified=True).

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "calligraphy_purge_job_vault"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	Job ID to shred immediately.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the operation is an immediate destructive shred of all enclave CAD and synthesis artifacts and that it returns a signed destruction certificate with zero_retention_verified=True. It still omits explicit permission requirements, irreversible wording, and failure or partial-deletion behavior, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive action, scope, and return value are all stated directly.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential action scope and the returned certificate. It leaves out permission and error-handling context, which keeps it from being fully complete, but the core invocation context is present.

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 single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema as the job to shred immediately. The description does not add format examples, ID sourcing, or validation semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb, 'shred,' and a specific resource, 'all enclave CAD and synthesis artifacts for job_id,' so the tool's purpose is unmistakable. It also mentions the return value, but it does not explicitly differentiate this purge operation from any sibling tool.

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 states the operation but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it names no alternative tools. 'Immediately' signals urgency but not selection criteria, so an agent must infer that this is the correct deletion path.

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

Deploy Server