get_evidence_manifestRetrieve a document's cryptographic evidence manifest to verify its integrity and audit trail. Provides a machine-readable record of verification data.
Read the cryptographic evidence manifest for a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | VeriLock document id or slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and does not contradict them. But it adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state: there is no mention of what the manifest contains, whether anything is computed or merely retrieved, or what happens when the document is missing. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes little extra transparency.
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?
The entire description is one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action first and the resource, and every word carries meaning.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with thorough annotations, the description is minimally sufficient, but since there is no output schema it does not tell the agent what the evidence manifest looks like or how to interpret the response. It also lacks the sibling differentiation that would make it fully complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, documentId, is already described as 'VeriLock document id or slug'. The description says 'for a document', which aligns with the parameter, but does not add extra semantics about slugs, format, or edge cases beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('cryptographic evidence manifest for a document'), clearly identifying the tool's action. It does not, however, explain what the manifest contains or how it differs from siblings like verify_document_hash or get_certificate, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_document, verify_document_hash, get_chain_attestation, or get_certificate. The agent must infer the intended use case solely from the phrase 'evidence manifest' and the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.