Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aichivist

aichivist

by luftphilipp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Verify

verify
Read-only

Check a closed collection against its fixity manifest to confirm file integrity and detect changes.

Instructions

Check a closed collection against its fixity manifest.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "additionalProperties": {
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "object"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "verifyOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the meaningful behavioral context that this compares a collection against a fixity manifest, but it omits what happens on mismatch, what the result looks like, and whether the collection must truly be closed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its terseness leaves important concepts unexplained rather than wasting words.

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 verification tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is thin. It does not explain what 'closed collection' or 'fixity manifest' mean in this system, what a successful or failed verification returns, or how the caller should interpret results.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole 'path' parameter. The agent can infer that path points at the collection being verified, but the description does not clarify whether it is a collection root, manifest location, or something else.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: checking a closed collection against its fixity manifest. This is more precise than a tautology, but the jargon 'closed collection' and lack of differentiation from sibling check-oriented tools (catalog_check, program_check) keep it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is an integrity check performed after a collection is closed, and cannot tell when to prefer it over catalog_check or other check tools.

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