Skip to main content
Glama
kerbelp

Metatron

by kerbelp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_verification

Fetch read-only verification contracts for a scope to see how a change is proven and what a failing check implies about the faulty subsystem.

Instructions

Fetch the team's verification contracts for a scope: how a change here is proven, and — in each contract's "failure_means" — what a red check implies about which subsystem is at fault.

    This is READ-ONLY. It never executes anything; contracts are run only by an
    operator or CI via `metatron verification run`, never over this server. Use
    the returned setup/checks/assertions to run the proof yourself in your own
    sandbox, and use "failure_means" to route any failure.

    Returns a JSON array of contracts, or the string "No matching verification
    contracts." when none are registered for the scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoOptional check tags to narrow by (e.g. ["smoke", "critical-path"]).
scopeYesThe subsystem/scope you are about to verify or work in (e.g. "services/auth"). Contracts relevant to it are returned.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.13.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares READ-ONLY, states it never executes anything, explains that contracts are run only via `metatron verification run`, and describes the return shape (JSON array or the 'No matching...' string). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a query tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then return format. Slightly verbose with an em-dash aside and a note that partly duplicates the output schema, but every sentence is informative and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, usage, and failure-routing semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the scope concept ('the subsystem you are about to verify') but does not add syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Fetch the team's verification contracts for a scope', and clarifies what a contract contains (setup/checks/assertions, failure_means). This is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_verification_template (templates) and get_decisions_for_context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result: run the proof yourself in your sandbox and use failure_means to route failures, and clarifies contracts are run by operator/CI, not this server. It gives clear usage context but does not name an alternative sibling tool for comparison.

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