macp-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a commitment hash by recomputing it from session history or base64 payload bytes. Returns match, mismatch, or cannot_verify to confirm the claimed hash is valid.

Instructions

Check a commitment hash by recomputing it (RFC-MACP-0013).

Pass exactly one of session_id or payload_b64. outcome is match, mismatch, or cannot_verify (the payload itself is not hashable under the label).

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": {
      "commitment_hash": "<commitment_hash>"
    },
    "name": "verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`session_id`	No	Re-fetch the Commitment from this session's runtime history.
`payload_b64`	No	Or: base64 Commitment payload bytes you already hold.
`commitment_hash`	Yes	The claimed hash, 'sha256:' followed by 64 hex digits.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`hash_label`	Yes
`session_id`	No
`claimed_hash`	Yes
`recomputed_hash`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by enumerating the outcome values and explaining the non-obvious 'cannot_verify' case (payload not hashable under the label). It does not discuss failure behavior for a malformed hash, but otherwise adds real context beyond annotations.

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 core action, then the exclusivity rule and the outcome semantics. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 an output schema, annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on hash-format errors or precedence if both parameters are passed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline; the description goes beyond the schema by stating that exactly one of session_id or payload_b64 must be supplied, which the schema itself (both with empty-string defaults) does not enforce or clarify.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('check ... by recomputing') and a specific resource ('commitment hash'), plus an RFC anchor. That distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_commitment, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Pass exactly one of session_id or payload_b64' is a real usage constraint and the two modes are named. However, there is no guidance on when to verify versus calling get_commitment first, or what to do if both are supplied — the routing decision versus siblings is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server