Skip to main content
Glama
sawftware-apps

DocImprint Document Intelligence

Official

Verify Action Receipt

receipt.verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a signed action receipt to prove both signature authenticity and that the bound manifest still matches the current document, detecting stale or superseded actions.

Instructions

Independently verify a signed action receipt (rcpt_...) returned by bundle.get, bundle.verify, bundle.notarize, collection.add_document, or listed via receipt.list. Free — no credits consumed. Proves both that the receipt signature is authentic AND that the manifest_sha256 it was bound to still matches the bundle's current manifest — i.e. that the action was not performed against a stale or since-superseded document. Use for third-party audit of an agent's prior actions. Returns: { receipt_id, valid: boolean, signature_valid: boolean, manifest_matches_current: boolean, bundle_id, agent_id, action, manifest_sha256, signer_address, signed_at, tampered: string[] } Example prompts:

  • "Verify action receipt rcpt_550e8400 is authentic and still current."

  • "Was this receipt signed against the real document, or a stale copy?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receipt_idYesAction receipt ID (rcpt_...) returned in the receipt field of another tool's response. Example: "rcpt_550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validYes
actionYes
agent_idYes
tamperedYes
bundle_idYes
signed_atYes
receipt_idYes
signer_addressYes
manifest_sha256Yes
signature_validYes
manifest_matches_currentYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: it is free, it checks two distinct conditions (signature validity and manifest currency), and the output includes a 'tampered' string array that flags any altered fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the verification logic, lists the return fields in a compact JSON shape, and ends with two example prompts. While a bit lengthy, every sentence carries useful information and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description effectively includes an output schema through the Returns block, covers the input parameter and its origin, explains the verification semantics, and provides example user prompts. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps for an agent to successfully invoke it.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a description and example for receipt_id. The description further enriches meaning by explaining that the receipt ID is returned by specific sibling tools and appears in the format rcpt_..., which helps the agent map the parameter to real-world usage beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'verify' and identifies the exact resource ('signed action receipt') with the rcpt_ prefix. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining that it proves both signature authenticity and current manifest match, which clearly differentiates receipt.verify from bundle.verify and other verification-like tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for third-party audit of an agent's prior actions'), names all tools that produce the receipts (bundle.get, bundle.verify, etc.), and adds a cost-related guideline ('Free — no credits consumed'). This gives clear, actionable context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sawftware-apps/docimprint-sdk'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server