Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

verify_decoration_preset_release

Read-only

Verifies a preset release's signature and, by default, re-fingerprints the pinned preset version to compare against the signed content. Use it to confirm release integrity in Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Verify a preset release's signature and optionally its content.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "release_id": "<release_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_decoration_preset_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
release_idYesId of the preset release to verify.
recompute_from_presetNoWhen true (the default), also re-fingerprint the preset version the release pins and compare it with the signed one. Pass false to check the signature only. Default: true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / recompute_from_preset / description
      Previous value: -"Default: true."New value: +"When true (the default), also re-fingerprint the preset version the release pins and compare it with the signed one.  Pass false to check the signature only. Default: true."
    • addedInput schema / properties / release_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the preset release to verify."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the Kiln Pro tier requirement, which an agent must check before invoking. It does not describe whether verification is expensive, what a failed verification implies, or any side effects, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately as a separate line, which is exactly how an agent scans a definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the action and the tier gate, but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified. An agent cannot tell whether verification yields a boolean, a signature blob, or a detailed diff report, which matters more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both release_id and the recompute_from_preset default and semantics in detail. The description's 'optionally its content' merely echoes that flag without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifying a preset release's signature, plus the optional content re-fingerprinting. An agent can distinguish it from sibling mutations like sign_decoration_preset_release or retire_decoration_preset_release. It stops short of naming the parallel verify_design_release / verify_feature_release tools, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'optionally its content' hints at the two modes of use and the prerequisite 'Needs Kiln Pro' tells the agent when the tool is even callable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over verify_provenance_integrity or the other verify_* siblings, and no statement of what to do on failure.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools