Run proofgate, immunity, and crossnode demos to demonstrate tamper-evident claim verification, prompt-injection checks, and reusable antibodies from blocked attacks.
Run the proofgate, immunity and crossnode demos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says the demos are run but does not disclose whether they mutate state, what permissions are needed, what output to expect, or whether they are safe for production use.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter demo tool.
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?
The description names the three demos, which is enough for basic selection, but it does not explain what those demos do or what the agent should expect. With no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.
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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('demos'), and names the three demo families (proofgate, immunity, crossnode). This clearly separates it from sibling verification and stats tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 description says the tool runs demos but gives no guidance on when to choose it over trust_verify_claims, trust_check_injection, or the other siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.