mcp_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing side effects or behavior. It does not mention whether the verification returns a boolean, raises errors, or has any security implications, leaving the agent uninformed about expected outcomes.

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 entire description is a single, contained sentence that states the action without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 only one nested parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks any mention of return values, failure modes, or how the signed payload should be structured beyond the schema, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already includes a description for the sole 'signedPayload' parameter ('Signed payload containing toolName, parameters, and meta'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'verify' with a clear resource ('MCP tool call request signature'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like mcp_scan and generate_aibom. The cryptographic nature is also stated, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or contexts where verification is needed. The description simply states the action without helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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