mcp-sing

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_proof

Generates an honest pre-hardware proof that verifies signature geometry, order, direction as real and width as nominal, enabling deterministic reproduction.

Instructions

Proof honesto pré-hardware (geometria/ordem/direção=REAL; largura=NOMINAL).

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": {
      "signature_id": "<signature_id>"
    },
    "name": "render_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`out_dir`	No		out
`signature_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It suggests a pre-hardware simulation ('pré-hardware') but does not clarify side effects, whether it is read-only or destructive, or what happens after invocation. The agent lacks understanding of the tool's impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the cost of clarity. It is not front-loaded with key information and provides minimal value. Every word is present, but the sentence does not earn its place due to vagueness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The tool has 2 parameters and complex sibling relationships, yet the description offers no context about return values, side effects, or prerequisites. It is insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters. With 0% schema coverage and two parameters ('out_dir', 'signature_id') that have no descriptions in the schema, the description fails to add any meaning. The agent cannot infer the role of these parameters from the description.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Proof honesto pré-hardware (geometria/ordem/direção=REAL; largura=NOMINAL)' is cryptic and fails to clearly state what the tool does. It hints at a pre-hardware proof with specific geometric attributes, but the term 'proof' is ambiguous, and no resource or action verb is clearly defined. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'compile_toolpath' or 'test_plot'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'compile_calibrated' or 'production_run'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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