Skip to main content
Glama
lacs-project

sysknife

sysknife_audit_verify

Verify the integrity of the audit log's Ed25519-signed hash chain, returning status and first broken row if any.

Instructions

Verify the tamper-evident Ed25519-signed hash chain over the audit log. Returns status (intact/broken/cannot_verify), rows_checked, and, on broken, the first offending row. Read-only and safe to call without prior sysknife_plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actualNoThe hex Ed25519 signature actually stored for the first broken row.
reasonNoHuman-readable explanation. Only set when `status == "cannot_verify"`.
statusYesOne of `"intact"`, `"broken"`, `"cannot_verify"`.
backendYesBackend label: a filesystem path for SQLite, the literal `"postgres"` for Postgres deployments.
expectedNoWhat verification expected for the first broken row (the literal `"valid ed25519 signature"`).
rows_checkedYesNumber of audit rows the verifier successfully checked. `0` for `cannot_verify` outcomes that fail before the first row is read.
binding_statusYes`"consistent"` or `"missing_event"`: whether every event tip committed by a transaction row is still present in the event chain.
events_checkedYesNumber of approval events (grant / consume / revoke) checked in the second chain.
first_broken_seqNoSequence number of the first row that broke the chain. Only set when `status == "broken"`.
approval_events_statusYesResult of the approval-event chain walk: `"intact"`, `"broken"`, or `"cannot_verify"`. Reported separately from `status` so a clean authorisation trail can never paper over a tampered approval trail.
first_broken_transaction_idNoTransaction ID of the first broken row. Only set when `status == "broken"`.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool is read-only and safe, and describes the return values (status, rows_checked, first offending row). This is thorough for a simple 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no parameters and an implied output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return values. It mentions the cryptographic algorithm (Ed25519) for specificity but does not explain potential causes of 'cannot_verify' status, though this is minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the specific resource 'tamper-evident Ed25519-signed hash chain over the audit log'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (doctor, execute, history, plan) which have different purposes.

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?

Description indicates it is 'read-only and safe to call without prior sysknife_plan', providing context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lacs-project/sysknife'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server