ghost_verify_outputValidates output.csv structure, vocabulary, IDs, and phase order, then reports SHA-256 and status counts to verify audit outputs.
Structural validation of output.csv (contract, vocabulary, ids, phase order) plus sha256 and status counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | defaults to the repository output.csv |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it performs four named structural checks and computes a sha256 and status counts, but it does not disclose whether a failed validation returns a report or raises an error, which is the critical behavioral detail for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero filler; the resource and the checks are front-loaded and the auxiliary outputs (sha256, status counts) follow compactly. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back; it hints at sha256 and status counts but leaves the shape of validation results and failure behavior unspecified. Adequate for a simple read-only check but with a clear gap around return semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the default ('defaults to the repository output.csv'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no path semantics beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Structural validation') plus the exact resource (output.csv) and enumerates the checks performed (contract, vocabulary, ids, phase order) along with sha256 and status counts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but none of the listed siblings overlap with this artifact validation task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The usage is only implied by the artifact name; an agent must infer that this is the pre-flight check on output.csv.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.