Skip to main content
Glama
ypratap11

dokimo-mcp

by ypratap11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

verify_evidence_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies one evidence package record by recomputing its Merkle proof and checking the on-chain anchor on Base; returns a verified verdict for that record only.

Instructions

Ask Dokimo to check one record of an evidence package against the on-chain anchor.

Sends the package to Dokimo's public A2A endpoint, which recomputes the Merkle proof AND checks the anchored commitment (root + rule version, plus the close summary for v2) against the anchor on Base. The verdict is Dokimo's answer and is not signed. package must contain: leaf (str), root (str), proof_path (list of [sibling_hash, "L"|"R"]), and rule_version_commitment (str); for a v2 close also summary and binding; close_id is optional/echoed.

Returns the verdict: {verified, checks:{recompute, onchain_anchor, rule_version_bound}, ...}. verified is true only if the proof recomputes AND the commitment is anchored on-chain. It covers this one record only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesThe Dokimo evidence package to verify. Required keys: 'leaf' (str), 'root' (str), 'proof_path' (list of [sibling_hash, "L"|"R"]), and 'rule_version_commitment' (str). For a dokimo-anchor-v2 close (every close anchored after the v2 cutover) also 'summary' (the close summary) and 'binding' (the leaf's evidence binding); without them the package is checked as legacy v1. 'close_id' (str) is optional and echoed back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / package / description
      Previous value: -"The Dokimo evidence package to verify. Required keys: 'leaf' (str), 'root' (str), 'proof_path' (list of [sibling_hash, \"L\"|\"R\"]), and 'rule_version_commitment' (str). 'close_id' (str) is optional and echoed back."New value: +"The Dokimo evidence package to verify. Required keys: 'leaf' (str), 'root' (str), 'proof_path' (list of [sibling_hash, \"L\"|\"R\"]), and 'rule_version_commitment' (str). For a dokimo-anchor-v2 close (every close anchored after the v2 cutover) also 'summary' (the close summary) and 'binding' (the leaf's evidence binding); without them the package is checked as legacy v1. 'close_id' (str) is optional and echoed back."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the package is sent to Dokimo's public A2A endpoint, that the verdict is NOT signed, exactly what gets checked (Merkle recompute plus root and rule-version binding against the Base anchor, with the close summary for v2), and that verification is limited to one record. These are material trust and scope facts an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then the required package shape, then the return contract — a sensible order with little filler. Some of the package-key enumeration duplicates the schema description and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape ({verified, checks:{recompute, onchain_anchor, rule_version_bound}}) and the precise semantics of verified (true only if both recompute and anchor checks pass). Combined with the v1/v2 package requirements and the unsigned-verdict caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates leaf, root, proof_path, rule_version_commitment, summary, binding, and the optional echoed close_id, including the v1 fallback. The description largely restates those keys rather than adding new semantics, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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?

States a specific verb (verify/check) and resource (one record of an evidence package) against a named target (the on-chain anchor on Base). The scope line 'It covers this one record only' and the mention that the proof is recomputed distinguish it from the sibling recompute_merkle_root, which only recomputes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes clear the invocation context (verify a package against the anchored commitment, v1 vs v2 handling, single-record scope), so an agent knows when this tool applies. It stops short of naming recompute_merkle_root as the alternative for pure proof recomputation, so routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools