Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
viridis-agent-fleet

viridis-agent-fleet

by jdhart81
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

surety__verify_audit

Validate the tamper-evident audit hash chain for a bond using its bond ID, ensuring the bond records have not been tampered with.

Instructions

[surety — bonding + ruling-gated slashing (risk transfer)] Validate the tamper-evident audit hash chain for a bond.

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": {
      "bond_id": "<bond_id>"
    },
    "name": "surety__verify_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bond_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / bond_id / title
      Added value: +"Bond Id"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"verify_auditArguments"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.9
    • removedInput schema / properties / bond_id / title
      Removed value: -"Bond Id"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"verify_auditArguments"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / bond_id / title
      Added value: +"Bond Id"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"verify_auditArguments"
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / bond_id / title
      Removed value: -"Bond Id"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"verify_auditArguments"
  5. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes a read-like validation but does not disclose what happens on failure, return behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

The description is very concise with a front-loaded domain context. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, missing parameter and behavioral info.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the audit chain context, validation criteria, or result interpretation, leaving the agent under-informed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the bond_id parameter or its format, constraints, or usage. The agent gets no guidance beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates the tamper-evident audit hash chain for a bond. It uses a specific verb (Validate) and resource (audit hash chain), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bond_status or slash_bond.

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 description implies usage for verifying audit integrity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other surety or verification tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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