Locate fair-use verbatim excerpts with exact chapter coordinates, SHA-256 hash, and Ed25519 receipt to verify citations for a canonical concept.
Locate fair-use verbatim excerpts (<=300 chars) with exact chapter coordinates, 64-bit SHA-256 hash, and Ed25519 cryptographic receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| concept_id | Yes | Canonical concept identifier. | |
| query_context | No | Optional sentence context to guide snippet anchor selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Locate" implies a read operation and the description usefully discloses that excerpts are capped at 300 chars and come with coordinates, a hash, and a signed receipt, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, whether a receipt requires a key setup, or pagination/truncation behaviour when a concept has many excerpts.
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?
A single dense sentence with the core action and the key outputs front-loaded; no filler. The parenthetical technical list is compact but slightly jargon-heavy for an agent unfamiliar with receipt semantics.
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?
With no output schema, the burden of describing returns falls on the description, and it does cover the main return fields (excerpt, chapter coordinates, hash, Ed25519 receipt). The main remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the four sibling tools.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no information about concept_id format or how query_context influences anchor selection, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ("Locate") and a specific resource ("fair-use verbatim excerpts") bounded by a size limit, and it names the artifacts returned (chapter coordinates, SHA-256 hash, Ed25519 receipt). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes this from siblings like veriscope_verify_attestation or veriscope_discover_concepts, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the other veriscope tools, no prerequisites (e.g. must a concept be discovered first via veriscope_discover_concepts?), and no exclusions. The only implied usage is the general notion of retrieving excerpts for a concept.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.