verify_document_hashVerify a document's authenticity by providing its SHA-256 digest to retrieve matching VeriLock records. Returns exact matches without uploading document bytes.
Find VeriLock records matching an exact SHA-256 digest. No document bytes are accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | 64-character SHA-256 digest in hexadecimal |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing exact matching and rejecting document bytescard. It does not detail return shape or pagination, but the annotations carry most of the safety burden.
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 with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the critical input constraint is stated immediately after.
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 lookup tool, the description, schema, and annotations together provide enough information for correct invocation. Return value details are not specified, but no output schema exists and the semantics are simple enough that this is not a critical gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that 'sha256' is a 64-character hexadecimal SHA-256 digest. The description adds modest value by reinforcing 'exact' and explicitly saying no document bytes are accepted, but it does not substantially expand on 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 ('Find'), a clear resource ('VeriLock records'), and a precise criterion ('exact SHA-256 digest'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling get/list tools because it is a hash-based lookup rather than a document retrieval.
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 second sentence, 'No document bytes are accepted,' explicitly warns against a common misuse and implies the intended use case: call this when you have a SHA-256 digest and want matching records. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the context and first sentence make the distinction clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.