Verify JWT signature (HS* with secret, RS* with public_key PEM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| secret | No | For HS256/384/512 | |
| algorithms | No | e.g. ["HS256"] | |
| public_key | No | PEM public key for RS algorithms |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only verification operation but does not describe what happens on failure (e.g., returns false vs throws error) or mention any side effects. Adequate but lacking detail.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates purpose and key parameter usage.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers core functionality but omits expected return format (e.g., boolean) and error behavior. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping 'secret' with HS algorithms and 'public_key' with RS, clarifying the parameter-algorithm relationship beyond the schema's individual descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Verify JWT signature', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jwt_decode and jwt_sign by specifying algorithm families (HS*, RS* with corresponding keys).
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 description provides clear guidance on when to use 'secret' (for HS algorithms) vs 'public_key' (for RS algorithms). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like jwt_claims_audit.
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.
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose with thorough descriptions. Even closely related tools like base64_decode/encode and hash_md5/sha256 are easily differentiated by name and description.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase_underscore naming convention, typically in a <domain>_<action> or <action>_<domain> pattern. There are no jarring deviations or mixed styles.
193 tools is an extreme count, far beyond what any focused server needs. While each tool has utility, the sheer number creates a kitchen-sink effect that overwhelms agents and hinders discoverability.
Within each subdomain (JSON, cron, JWT, etc.), the coverage is exhaustive, covering validation, conversion, parsing, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., YAML-to-TOML conversion missing), but overall it is remarkably complete.