SiteGraph

image_provenance

Reads C2PA Content Credentials from an image or video to reveal its signer, signing time, recorded actions, AI-generation declarations, and validation state.

Instructions

Read C2PA Content Credentials: signer, time, actions, AI-generation declarations, validation state.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "image_provenance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes	Image/video URL or local path

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only via the verb 'Read'. It does not say what happens when a file has no C2PA manifest, whether the source URL is fetched over the network, or how validation failures are reported — gaps that matter for a provenance-checking tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence leading with the action and resource, with the payload of returned fields following. No filler, no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the field list need not explain return values, and the single parameter is fully documented. The only shortfall is the absence of behavioral notes on missing credentials or fetch failures, which for a low-complexity read tool is a minor gap.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Image/video URL or local path'), so the schema already documents accepted input forms. The description adds nothing about the source parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but no more than baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (C2PA Content Credentials), then enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces. It does not differentiate from the siblings (claim_timeline, url_timeline, fact_checks), though those are far enough apart in scope that confusion is unlikely.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the name and 'Read C2PA Content Credentials' suggest calling it on an image/video when provenance metadata is wanted. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the timeline/fact-check siblings.

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

Deploy Server