Skip to main content
Glama

verify_audit

Verify every audit chain read-only and report where each first breaks, returning the seq of the first altered record per plan and for the host chain.

Instructions

Verify every audit chain and report where each one first breaks.

Read-only: nothing is appended, rewritten or repaired. The answer is {"ok": True, "plans": {<plan>: None | <bad seq>}, "host": None | <bad seq>}. A plan appears only when it has an audit file; the value is the seq of its first altered record, or None when the chain is intact. The host-scoped chain — events with no plan to belong to, such as a host config write — is verified the same way and reported under host.

A chain with no externally recorded head cannot prove that trailing records were not removed, so truncation of the tail verifies intact. When PIPELINE_AUDIT_ANCHOR names a sink, the answer gains an anchor mapping from the same chain names to this tool's tamper verdict for each one, which is what catches a cut tail. If the anchor log itself cannot be read, that mapping holds a single * entry with an anchor log unreadable verdict: the anchors are unknown, so no chain is reported clean.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it declares read-only behavior explicitly ('nothing is appended, rewritten or repaired'), discloses the truncation blind spot, and explains the PIPELINE_AUDIT_ANCHOR opt-in and the unreadable-anchor failure mode. It stops short of stating permissions required or cost/latency of a full chain scan.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then read-only status, then the response contract in a logical progression. It is fairly long and the embedded JSON-ish return prose is dense, but each part carries non-obvious information; minor trimming of the anchor failure case would tighten it.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still spells out the response shape, so an agent can reason about results without inference. Given zero parameters and no annotations, the only material omissions are permission requirements and the operational cost of a full verification pass.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add meaning for the out-of-band PIPELINE_AUDIT_ANCHOR environment variable that changes the response shape, which is useful context not expressible in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify every audit chain') plus the outcome ('report where each one first breaks'). This is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling record_security_audit, and no schema needs to be opened to know what it does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the chain-integrity checker, and the truncation caveat hints at when its verdict is inconclusive. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing, no mention of a sibling alternative, and no guidance on prerequisites such as being inside a pipeline workspace.

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