agy_computer_use.mcp_server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cu_verify_oracle

Verifies UI action success by comparing visual frame deltas using 64-bit dHash and records an RFC 6962 Merkle receipt for audit verification.

Instructions

Verify visual frame delta via 64-bit dHash and record RFC 6962 Merkle receipt.

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": "cu_verify_oracle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`norm_x`	No	X on [0..1000] grid.
`norm_y`	No	Y on [0..1000] grid.
`action_type`	No	Action type verified.
`target_title`	No	Target window title.
`synthetic_seed_after`	No	Post-action seed.
`synthetic_seed_before`	No	Pre-action seed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistent side effect by saying it will 'record' a Merkle receipt, but does not clarify permissions, side effects, reversibility, whether prior seeds are required, or what happens on verification failure.

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?

The definition is a single tightly packed sentence with the primary verb and technical mechanism front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how verification success or failure is represented, or how this differs from the adjacent cu_merkle_audit tool.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific two-part operation: verify a visual frame delta using a 64-bit dHash and record an RFC 6962 Merkle receipt. That distinguishes it from generic click/type/capture tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling cu_merkle_audit, which sounds closely related.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. The agent must infer from 'verify visual frame delta' whether this is a post-action step, a manual verification utility, or something used before cu_merkle_audit.

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

Deploy Server