Verify that a payload-free audit hash chain is intact and unbroken, confirming governance record integrity without accessing message bodies.
Verify a payload-free audit hash chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'payload-free' qualifier as minor context but does not describe failure behavior, output, or what verification entails. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification.
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?
For a tool with one required, undocumented array parameter and no output schema, the description is too terse. An agent cannot determine what valid 'events' input looks like, what a successful verification returns, or how the hash chain is structured.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the required 'events' parameter — not what the array objects must contain, not how they relate to the hash chain. 'Payload-free' hints at content but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('audit hash chain'), with the qualifying term 'payload-free' adding scope. It is clearly distinguishable from the closest sibling audit.tail, though the phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like audit.tail or messages.validate, and no when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer suitability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.