verify_signature_codeLook up the signing record tied to a signature verification code on any document, so you can verify authenticity without trusting the sender.
Look up the verification code stamped beside any Signathing signature and return the signing record it belongs to. Works for any document, not only yours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX code printed beside the signature. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' implies a non-mutating read and 'any document, not only yours' hints that ownership scoping doesn't apply, but there is no mention of auth/permission requirements, whether the code is single-use or expiring, or any failure behavior for an unrecognized code.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its result, and the second sentence delivers the scope constraint without padding. Nothing here is wasted.
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?
Only one parameter and no output schema, and the description does state the return concept ('the signing record it belongs to'), which partially compensates. Still missing for an unannotated tool: permission model, behavior on invalid codes, and any rate-limit note for what looks like a public verification endpoint.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the code parameter with the XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX format. The description adds no additional meaning about the code (case sensitivity, trimming, whitespace, expiry) beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: look up a verification code and return the signing record it belongs to. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set (account, document, evidence, send/void/remind), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest alternatives like get_document or get_evidence.
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 scope note 'Works for any document, not only yours' implies when this tool applies and how it differs from a user-scoped lookup, which is useful guidance. However, it names no alternative tool and states no conditions for choosing it over get_document/get_evidence, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.