Verify Seal AI decision receipts: signed evidence anyone can check, no account needed.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: decoding, explaining, fetching keys/samples, listing, verifying, etc. There is no overlap; even the two verification tools (verify_receipt and verify_evidence_pack) are clearly separated by scope (single vs. pack).
Almost all tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., decode_receipt, get_public_key, list_my_receipts). The exception is 'workspace_summary', which is a noun phrase instead of a verb phrase, but it is still readable and the inconsistency is minor.
With 10 tools, the server covers a specific domain (receipt verification and attestation) without overloading. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels well-scoped for the intended functionality.
The tool surface covers the receipt lifecycle: fetching keys, samples, listing, decoding, verifying, and obtaining transparency proofs. A minor gap is that there is no tool to retrieve a single receipt by ID (only list), but the core workflows are fully supported.
decode_receiptRead a receiptBRead a receipt field by field, with stated limits. Does not check the signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by mentioning the signature-check omission. However, the phrase 'with stated limits' is ambiguous and does not specify what those limits are, reducing transparency. For a read-only tool, the description provides moderate extra behavioral context.
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 extremely concise at two sentences, each adding unique information: the first defines the action, the second adds a key limitation. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded. Perfect conciseness for this purpose.
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 no output schema and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the return format, parameter details, and the nature of 'stated limits.' It lacks explanation of what the tool returns (e.g., field names, structure) and what the receipt input should look like. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 0% for the sole parameter 'receipt' (type object/string with no schema description). The description does not compensate at all—it gives no information about what the receipt parameter should contain, format, or constraints. Since the schema provides no details and the description omits parameter semantics entirely, this is a critical gap.
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 the tool reads a receipt field by field, which is a specific verb+resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like verify_receipt by noting it does not check the signature. However, the phrase 'with stated limits' is vague and could confuse an agent about what constraints apply.
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 explicitly says 'Does not check the signature,' informing the agent when not to use this tool (e.g., if signature verification is needed, use verify_receipt). It implies usage for reading fields without verification, though it does not name alternatives explicitly or provide when-to-use conditions beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_attestation_formatExplain the receipt formatAThe receipt format: fields, outcomes, verification commands, and what a signature does not establish. Use before describing the format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the content of the explanation (fields, outcomes, verification commands, signature limitations) and the preparatory usage instruction, which goes beyond what annotations convey.
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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and adds usage guidance in the second. Every part earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness for the information conveyed.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description fully covers what an agent needs: the tool's purpose, the specific topics it explains, and a usage hint. No additional details are necessary for correct invocation or understanding.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly does not introduce contradictory parameter information and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states it explains the receipt format, listing specific aspects: fields, outcomes, verification commands, and what a signature does not establish. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_receipt and verify_receipt, which perform actions rather than provide explanatory information.
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 includes the directive 'Use before describing the format,' providing a clear contextual cue for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different tasks, though the context is strong enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_public_keyGet the published signing keyBFetch the published Seal signing key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only the resource name ('Seal signing key') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, latency, caching behavior, or what happens if the key is unavailable. For a simple fetch, this is minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is perfectly sized for the task and immediately front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Despite the tool being simple (0 parameters, no output schema), the description omits crucial details about the return value (e.g., format, encoding, whether it's a raw key or a JWK) and does not explain what the 'Seal signing key' is used for. An agent would lack the context needed to interpret the result or decide if this tool is appropriate without prior knowledge.
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?
There are no parameters (schema is empty with 100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not mislead and the absence of parameters is clear. No extra parameter documentation is required.
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 'Fetch' and explicitly names the resource as 'the published Seal signing key,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like decode_receipt, verify_receipt, and get_transparency_proof. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligns with the tool name.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., should it be used before verifying receipts? Are there prerequisites?). It neither states typical scenarios nor excludes inappropriate use. There is no mention of siblings or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_review_packGet an evidence packAThe published sample evidence pack: fixed review question, bound receipts, disclosure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack_id | No | Pack id. Only the published "sample" pack is available without an account. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies that the result is a 'published sample evidence pack' with 'fixed review question, bound receipts, disclosure,' which clarifies the nature of the returned data. No contradictions with annotations. The description doesn't mention auth requirements beyond the parameter hint, but annotations already cover the read-only nature.
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, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose and key attributes. It front-loads the core function and avoids fluff. Could be slightly improved for clarity, but overall efficient.
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 the tool has a simple signature (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks information about what the output looks like (is it a file? JSON? format?), and the distinction between 'sample' and other packs is ambiguous. The presence of sibling tools like get_sample_receipt suggests potential overlap, and the description does not fully disambiguate. The lack of output schema increases the burden on the description to describe the return value, which it does not.
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% with one parameter (pack_id) that has a meaningful description. The main description adds context about the pack being 'published sample' and its contents, which enhances understanding of what the pack_id parameter refers to. Since there is only one parameter and schema coverage is complete, the description provides additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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 states it retrieves a 'published sample evidence pack' with specific attributes (fixed review question, bound receipts, disclosure). However, 'published sample' is ambiguous—does it always return the sample pack or any published pack? The verb 'Get' is clear, but the resource scope could be clearer, especially given the single parameter pack_id and the annotation that only the 'sample' pack is available without an account.
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 implies this tool is for accessing published evidence packs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like get_sample_receipt or verify_evidence_pack. Sibling tools suggest a focus on evidence/receipt operations, but no guidance is given on whether this is for general access or only for the sample pack. The context that only 'sample' is available without an account is embedded in the parameter description, not the main tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sample_receiptGet a sample receiptAA genuine signed receipt from the sample workspace (demo key), for trying verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcome | No | Pick a sample with this outcome. A BLOCKED receipt was signed without the call reaching the provider. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the receipt is from a sample workspace with a demo key, providing context beyond annotations. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., response structure, rate limits) are disclosed. The description does not contradict annotations (annotation_contradiction=false).
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 one sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and source in a concise manner. Every word earns its place.
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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and why. A minor improvement would be specifying the return type (e.g., 'receipt object'), but it is not critical for correct invocation.
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 100%: the single optional parameter 'outcome' has a description in the schema explaining the enum values. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 when schema fully describes parameters.
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 the tool returns a genuine signed receipt from the sample workspace for trying verification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_receipts (lists user's receipts) and verify_receipt (verifies receipts). The verb 'get' and resource 'sample receipt' are specific and unambiguous.
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 mentions 'for trying verification', which implies a usage scenario, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool comparisons or exclusions are provided. The usage guidance is adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transparency_proofProve a receipt is in the logAInclusion proof plus signed tree head for one of your receipts. Requires your aqta_ key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attestation_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description clarifies that the tool works only for the user's own receipts (via 'aqta_ key') and produces two outputs (inclusion proof + signed tree head), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.
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 very concise—two sentences that cover the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action. One could argue the prerequisite could be integrated into the first sentence, but overall it's efficient.
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 that this tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and relies on annotations for safety profile, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to mention what the output is used for or how the inclusion proof is structured, which could leave an agent uncertain about downstream processing. The sibling tools context hints at verification workflows, so more context on return format would improve completeness.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains that 'attestation_id' is a receipt identifier but doesn't specify the format or example value. However, the context that requires the 'aqta_ key' implies the attestation_id is tied to that key, providing partial meaning. Still, a bit more detail on parameter format would improve the score.
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 the tool's purpose: generating an inclusion proof plus signed tree head for a user's receipt. The verb 'prove' combined with the resource 'receipt is in the log' is specific and distinct from sibling tools.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires your aqta_ key') which helps clarify when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_receipt' or 'decode_receipt', or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_my_receiptsList your signed receiptsAList your workspace receipts filtered by outcome, policy, model, or date range. Requires your aqta_ key as Bearer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows, default 25. | |
| model | No | Only receipts for this model. | |
| since | No | ISO timestamp lower bound. | |
| until | No | ISO timestamp upper bound. | |
| policy | No | Only receipts where this policy ran, e.g. pii_scan. | |
| outcome | No | Only receipts with this outcome. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the authentication requirement and the filtering capability, which are useful. However, it does not disclose any potential pagination behavior, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data (no output schema exists). The description adds some value but is not rich.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and filtering capability, then adds the authentication requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of receipt objects, metadata), nor does it mention default behavior for limit or pagination. The tool is simple, so a score of 3 reflects that the description leaves some gaps for the agent to infer.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions generic filtering options but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions (e.g., limit defaults to 25, ISO format for timestamps). No extra value is added to the parameters.
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 'List your workspace receipts', specifying the verb and resource. It also lists the filtering dimensions (outcome, policy, model, date range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_receipt or decode_receipt that serve different purposes.
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 mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires your aqta_ key as Bearer'), which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list vs. verify), relying on the sibling names and general context. Minimal guidance on when-not-to-use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_evidence_packVerify a whole evidence packAVerify every receipt in a pack. Per-receipt verdicts, never an average.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack | No | A pack object, or "sample" for the published sample pack. | |
| public_key | No | Key to pin every receipt against. Omit to use each envelope's embedded key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one key behavioral trait: outputs are per-receipt verdicts, not aggregated. This is useful but does not elaborate on aspects like error behavior, performance for large packs, or whether partial results are returned. With annotations handling safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two very short, focused sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second clarifies an important behavioral nuance that prevents misuse. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.
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 there is no output schema, the description could benefit from describing the return format (e.g., list of objects containing receipt ID and verdict). The complexity is low (2 params, no nested objects), and annotations provide safety context. A single sentence like 'Returns a list of objects, each with receipt_id and verdict' would make this a 4. Currently, a user must infer what 'per-receipt verdicts' means in practice.
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%, with both parameters ('pack' and 'public_key') having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), baseline is 3 even without extra param info. This baseline is correctly applied.
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 a specific verb 'Verify' and a clear resource 'every receipt in a pack'. It also adds a distinctive behavioral detail 'Per-receipt verdicts, never an average', which separates it from any tool that might average or summarize results. This is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.
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 clearly states what the tool does (verify every receipt) and implies its use in bulk verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like 'verify_receipt' (single receipt) or 'get_review_pack', though the name and behavior imply this is for batch operations. A brief note like 'For single receipt verification, use verify_receipt' would make this a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_receiptVerify a receiptACheck a receipt signature against a trusted or embedded key. No Aqta service in the check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | The receipt, as a JSON object or a JSON string. | |
| public_key | No | Base64url Ed25519 key to trust. Omit to use the key embedded in the receipt, which proves internal consistency only, never provenance. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states that no 'Aqta service' is involved in the check, and clarifies the meaning of omitting the public_key parameter. This goes beyond annotations by explaining behavioral constraints.
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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds critical behavioral detail without redundancy. While efficient, it could slightly expand on usage context without becoming verbose.
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 the tool has 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a clear purpose, the description adequately covers the verification action and key semantic nuance. However, it lacks details on expected outcomes (e.g., what a valid vs. invalid signature returns) and does not address potential error conditions, which could be important for a verification 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details but adds semantic nuance: it explains that omitting public_key proves internal consistency, not provenance. This adds slight value beyond the schema, but does not significantly enhance meaning for other parameters.
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 the verb ('Check') and the resource ('a receipt signature against a trusted or embedded key'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the verification function and the absence of 'Aqta service' involvement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar verification tools like 'verify_evidence_pack'.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to verify a receipt's signature) and mentions a key nuance (omitting public_key proves internal consistency only). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings (e.g., for decoding, use decode_receipt).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
workspace_summarySummarise your workspace decisionsAOutcome, model and policy counts across your recent receipts. Requires your aqta_ key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many recent receipts to summarise, default 100. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral requirement of an 'aqta_ key', which is not in the annotations, increasing transparency. However, it does not discuss rate limits, response format, or error handling.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It specifies the output type (counts of three dimensions), the input scope (recent receipts), and a prerequisite. It could mention the output format or default behavior, but it is adequate for effective use.
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 100% for the single parameter 'limit' with a description in the schema. The description adds context about what is being summarized (outcome, model, policy counts) but does not provide additional semantics for the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'summarise' and the resource 'workspace decisions' via 'Outcome, model and policy counts across your recent receipts.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_my_receipts' (lists) and 'decode_receipt' (decodes) by focusing on aggregation counts.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires your aqta_ key') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_my_receipts' or 'get_review_pack'. There is no explicit exclusion or usage context beyond the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
