GET one public-root card-v0 leaf by sha256 (64 hex) from https://councilof.ai/cards/{sha16}.json. UNMEASURED cells stay visible. Three states: VALID (fetched), INVALID (not a leaf of the live root), UNCHECKABLE (fetch failed). Not a GSPC measurement-card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | 64-char hex payload SHA-256 of the card-v0 leaf. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the GET method, endpoint, the effect that UNMEASURED cells stay visible, and the three possible result states. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a public read operation the disclosed behavior is solid.
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?
Three short dense sentences front-load the core operation and result states, with no filler. Every sentence contributes information needed to invoke or interpret the tool.
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?
For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers input format, endpoint, and return classification. The only notable gap is that '{sha16}' in the URL template is not explicitly defined as a truncation or prefix of the provided sha256 hash.
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 the schema already documents the sha256 parameter. The description adds the 64-hex constraint and the URL template, but it does not significantly expand on what the schema already provides.
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 names the HTTP verb and resource precisely ('GET one public-root card-v0 leaf by sha256'), gives the exact endpoint template, and explicitly distinguishes itself from a GSPC measurement-card. This is enough for an agent to separate it from sibling tools like list_cards and verify_card.
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?
The intended use is implied: fetch a single card leaf and classify it as VALID, INVALID, or UNCHECKABLE. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as verify_card, verify_inclusion, or list_cards, nor any when-not conditions beyond the brief 'Not a GSPC measurement-card' note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct target resource or action, but some boundaries require careful reading: get_card, verify_card, and verify_inclusion all deal with cards/proofs, while art50_marking_evidence and rwa_evidence are both paid evidence packs. The detailed descriptions help separate them, so misselection is unlikely but not impossible.
There are clear verb-prefixed clusters like get_axis/get_card/get_root and verify_card/verify_inclusion, but several tools use bare noun phrases: board_totals, commission_card, receipts_batch, rwa_evidence, and art50_marking_evidence. The naming is readable and snake_case throughout, but the verb/noun convention is mixed.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a GSPC board, measurement-card, evidence, and verification server. Each tool serves a distinct endpoint or workflow, and none feels redundant or purely decorative.
The surface covers board totals, axis details, roots, card retrieval, verification, paid evidence, and historical receipts. A minor gap is the absence of a list_axes tool to enumerate all board axes or a direct get_measurement_card endpoint, but existing tools can work around this via list_cards and verify_card.