Skip to main content
Glama
mrpkk

attest

by mrpkk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Verify a batch of AI agent artifacts

verify_artifact_batch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify multiple agent-produced artifacts in one call, returning a verdict per artifact and a summary of accepted, review-needed, or rejected results before payment.

Instructions

Verify several artifacts at once — a scan report, a list of findings, a set of tool descriptions. One call, one verdict per artifact, plus a summary of how many were accepted, need review, or were rejected. Use when an agent produced a batch (twenty findings from a security scan, for example) and each of them has to be checked before the work is paid for.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoOptional JSON Schema every artifact must satisfy.
sourceNoWhere the artifacts came from, recorded in the attestations.
artifactsYesThe artifacts to verify: objects, arrays or strings.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by describing the per-artifact verdict and batch summary counts, though it does not explain verdict criteria or batch limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the batch action and result format, then a concrete usage condition. There is no wasted text.

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?

With annotations covering safety and schema covering all parameters, the description supplies the missing return behavior at a high level. It remains slightly incomplete on verdict structure, batch size limits, and how schema failures are reported.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents artifacts, optional schema, and source. The description gives examples of artifact types but adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('verify several artifacts at once') and clarifies batch scope versus the singular sibling verify_artifact. It also specifies the output shape: one verdict per artifact plus an acceptance/review/rejection summary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear triggering condition: use when an agent has produced a batch of artifacts that each need checking before payment. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or directly name verify_artifact for single-item cases, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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