Verify a femtech source entry by matching its canonical and SHA-256 against stored provenance, with fail-closed results. Does not assess medical validity.
エントリの第三者検証。canonical と SHA-256、保存済み provenance との一致を返す。fail-closed。医学的真偽の判定ではない。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description adds behavioral details: it is fail-closed and explicitly disclaims medical truth evaluation. This gives extra insight into how the tool behaves and its limitations.
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?
The description is concise, direct, and well-structured. It conveys all key points in a few sentences without unnecessary verbosity or tangential details.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of purpose and behavior. It could clarify output format or error handling, but the fail-closed statement and scope limitation cover the most critical context.
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?
The schema provides no description for entry_id and the tool description does not explicitly explain what entry_id represents or how it should be formatted. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for parameter meaning.
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 clearly states that the tool performs third-party verification of an entry by checking canonical, SHA-256, and stored provenance. It also explicitly scopes that it is not a medical truth judgment, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from general check tools.
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?
The description implies usage for verifying entry integrity, but does not explicitly name alternatives like check_source or how_to_verify. The note about not being a medical truth judgment provides some exclusion, but lacks clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.