Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

verify_feature_release

Read-only

Verifies an Ed25519 signature for a 3D design feature release, optionally recomputing the version fingerprint to confirm signed content is unchanged. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Verify an Ed25519 feature release.

Needs Kiln Pro.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_feature_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feature_idNoId of the feature, for a lookup by release name. Used only together with ``release_name`` and only when ``release_id`` is not given.
release_idNoId of the release to verify. Give this, or ``feature_id`` with ``release_name``; with neither the call is refused (``FEATURE_RELEASE_LOOKUP``).
release_nameNoThe release's name, looked up under ``feature_id``.
recompute_fingerprintNoWhen true, also recompute the pinned version's current content fingerprint and compare it with the signed one. Off by default: only the signature is checked. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / feature_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the feature, for a lookup by release name. Used only together with ``release_name`` and only when ``release_id`` is not given."
    • changedInput schema / properties / recompute_fingerprint / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"When true, also recompute the pinned version's current content fingerprint and compare it with the signed one.  Off by default: only the signature is checked. Default: false."
    • addedInput schema / properties / release_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the release to verify.  Give this, or ``feature_id`` with ``release_name``; with neither the call is refused (``FEATURE_RELEASE_LOOKUP``)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / release_name / description
      Added value: +"The release's name, looked up under ``feature_id``."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: verification is Ed25519-based and the call requires a Kiln Pro entitlement. It stops short of saying what a successful or failed verification yields, or whether verification is local or server-side, which matters for an agent deciding whether to act on the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the action front-loaded. 'Needs Kiln Pro' is terse to the point of ambiguity about the failure mode, but nothing is wasted and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what verification returns (valid/invalid, fingerprint mismatch detail), and it says nothing about that. Combined with the absent routing guidance among the four sibling verify_* tools, this is adequate but leaves real gaps for a security-relevant operation.

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 parameter descriptions already explain the release_id versus feature_id+release_name alternatives, the refusal code, and the recompute_fingerprint behavior. The description adds nothing about any of the four parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; the word 'Ed25519' lightly contextualizes what recompute_fingerprint is comparing against.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Verify an Ed25519 feature release'), naming both the operation and the cryptographic scheme, so the agent knows exactly what is checked. It does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings verify_design_release, verify_decoration_preset_release, or verify_provenance_integrity, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 only usage condition given is a tier gate ('Needs Kiln Pro'). There is no statement of when to verify versus sign (sign_feature_release), when to inspect a release (list_feature_releases), or which sibling handles other artifact types. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name.

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