kernl

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kernel_attest_verify

Verify an attestation receipt against its embedded server_id to validate integrity statelessly; this does not check trust in the signing identity.

Instructions

Verify a previously-issued attestation receipt against its embedded server_id. Stateless verification — does not check whether you actually trust that signing identity. Wire-compatible with the Rust mtw-attest crate.

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": {
      "receipt": "<receipt>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_attest_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	Yes	Full receipt object as it appeared in `_meta.mtw.attestation`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`ts_ms`	No
`valid`	Yes
`reason`	No
`server_id`	No
`side_effects`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: verification is stateless, and trust of the signing identity is deliberately out of scope. It does not say what is actually checked (signature validity vs. hash match), nor what happens on failure versus success, which matters for a verification tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately; every clause adds information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the nested receipt object is fully documented in the schema. Given that support, the description is nearly complete; only failure/error semantics and the precise scope of 'verify' remain unstated.

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 single `receipt` parameter already documents required fields and its origin in `_meta.mtw.attestation`. The description only reinforces that `server_id` is embedded in the receipt, adding little meaning beyond the schema; 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: verify a previously-issued attestation receipt against its embedded `server_id`. The mention of `server_id` as the verification anchor gives enough scope to distinguish it from `kernel_attest_verify_chain`, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 exclusion 'does not check whether you actually trust that signing identity' implicitly routes trust decisions elsewhere (plausibly `kernel_attest_identity`), which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

Deploy Server