Reveals data matching a previously committed value and records the result, enabling verifiable disclosure of promised information.
Reveal data matching a prior commitment and record the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| nonce | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. | |
| commitment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the action records a result, implying a side effect, but does not mention irreversibility, one-time use, nonce validation, or what happens if the data does not match the commitment.
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 a single compact sentence with no redundant content and places the primary action first. It is efficient, though it could be even stronger with structured guidance on the commit-reveal flow.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits return behavior, failure modes, and prerequisite commitment state, so an agent cannot fully predict invocation consequences.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying that 'data' must match the commitment. The nonce and commitment_id semantics are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Reveal') and resource ('data matching a prior commitment') plus a secondary action ('record the result'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like commit_result by referring to a prior commitment, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.
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 phrase 'prior commitment' implies the tool should be used after a commitment has been made, which gives a clear contextual cue. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as commit_result, leaving usage boundaries implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.