verify_dsseVerifies a DSSE envelope against caller-trusted Ed25519 keys, optionally enforcing a signature threshold, so you can confirm artifact authenticity and integrity.
Verify a DSSE envelope against Ed25519 keys the caller trusts, with the dsse crate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope | Yes | ||
| threshold | No | ||
| trusted_keys | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact not in structured data: key material is constrained to Ed25519. It says nothing about failure behavior (error vs. result) or how multiple signatures/threshold interplay is reported.
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?
One tight sentence with the verb and key constraint front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'with the dsse crate' is implementation detail of minimal decision value for an agent.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a security-critical verification call with a threshold parameter the description omits too much. Nothing explains threshold semantics or the trusted_keys structure, which are exactly what a caller must get right.
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 0% and parameter titles are bare, yet the description explains none of the three inputs. It does not say what form the envelope takes, what threshold counts (signatures required?), or the shape of trusted_keys objects, leaving the caller to guess at the most error-prone part of the call.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (verify a DSSE envelope) plus the key type accepted, so the action is unambiguous. It does not compare itself to sibling verifiers like verify_claim or check_artifact_digest, so an agent must infer which verification tool applies.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling verify tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only contextual cue is 'keys the caller trusts', which is a condition of correctness rather than a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.