Verify a stored trust receipt using its receipt ID to retrieve the hash and anchor status from the EMILIA service.
Ask the configured EMILIA service to verify a stored trust receipt and report its hash and anchor status. Read-only, but not an offline verifier: the result is the service response for the supplied receipt_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes | Receipt ID (ep_rcpt_...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a network/service call (not offline) and returns the service response. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the operational nature.
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 concise sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a clarifying caveat about the non-offline nature. No redundant information or fluff.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (hash and anchor status), and its dependency on the EMILIA service. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including format ('ep_rcpt_...'). The description only references the parameter without adding new semantic details, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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 clearly states a specific verb (verify) and resource (stored trust receipt), and specifies the output (hash and anchor status). It also distinguishes itself from being an offline verifier, which helps differentiate from potential sibling tools.
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?
It gives clear context: it asks the EMILIA service, and explicitly excludes offline verification, implying it should be used when online service verification is needed. It does not name alternatives explicitly but provides an exclusion, which is sufficient for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.