A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceCryptographic proof of consent for AI agents. Sign before you act. Policy engine enforces spending caps, action whitelists, and escalation rules. Independently verifiable by anyone.
Last updated
10
2
Apache 2.0
verify
by ai.tachyo
Server Details
Cryptographic proof of wallet ownership in two steps, with no keys and no custody.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one requests a challenge, the other verifies a signed challenge. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (request_verification_challenge and verify_wallet_ownership) using underscores, which is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Two tools exactly match the two-step verification workflow. The server is tightly scoped and every tool is necessary.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the essential verification flow end-to-end. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to check verification status without re-verifying, but the verify tool returns session information, mitigating the issue.
Available Tools
2 toolsrequest_verification_challengeAInspect
Step 1 of wallet verification: get a fresh challenge for the user to sign.
chain: "evm" or "solana". Pass agent_id (your marketplace identity) so the proof is bound to you.
Present `challenge` to the user, have their wallet sign it (EVM personal_sign / Solana signMessage),
then call verify_wallet_ownership with the returned `nonce` + signature. The challenge is single-use
and expires (~10 min). Returns {challenge, nonce, expires_at}.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | evm | |
| address | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the challenge is single-use, expires (~10 min), and returns specific fields. It does not mention authentication requirements but covers essential behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then usage flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains input meaning, return value structure, workflow, and expiration behavior. No significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to chain and agent_id beyond the schema (chain values, agent_id purpose). Address is implied but not explicitly defined; schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'get a fresh challenge for the user to sign'. It identifies itself as 'Step 1 of wallet verification' and distinguishes from the sibling tool verify_wallet_ownership by outlining the workflow.
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 provides clear context for use: it is the first step, requires a chain and agent_id, and explains the subsequent call to verify_wallet_ownership. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_wallet_ownershipAInspect
Step 2 of wallet verification: prove control by signing the challenge from step 1.
chain: "evm" (secp256k1, 0x-hex signature) or "solana" (ed25519, base58/base64/hex). `nonce` is
from request_verification_challenge; the signature must be over that exact challenge text. Pass the
same agent_id you requested the challenge with — on success the wallet is linked to you and you get a
session_token to pass to Tachyo's other agents (e.g. check_token_safety) to unlock connected/premium
tiers. Returns {verified, address, chain, linked, session_token?, session_expires?}. Does not move
funds or expose keys.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | evm | |
| nonce | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| signature | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: signature formats per chain, no fund movement, no key exposure, return fields, and linking wallet/session token ownership. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No redundancy.
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?
Despite missing output schema, description fully covers return values, prerequisites, and safety. All necessary context for a signature verification tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates by explaining chain options (evm vs solana signatures), nonce origin, agent_id must match previous request, and signature format. All 5 parameters get meaningful context.
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?
Clearly states 'Step 2 of wallet verification: prove control by signing the challenge from step 1.' The verb 'prove control' and resource 'wallet ownership' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool by referencing step 1.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly explains when to use (after challenge from request_verification_challenge), chain options, nonce source, agent_id requirement, and what happens on success. Also states what it does not do ('Does not move funds or expose keys').
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for on-chain attestation and wallet trust profiles across 31 EVM chains and Solana. Privacy-preserving boolean verification, ECDSA-signed responses, compliance templates.Last updated275301MIT
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceSelf-custody AI agent wallets with passkeys, gasless transactions & programmable permissions (ERC-4337)Last updated18MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides permissionless wallet infrastructure for AI agents to manage wallets, sign transactions, and handle tokens across Solana and all EVM-compatible chains. It includes 29 specialized tools for on-chain operations, featuring built-in security guards and automated x402 payment processing without KYC requirements.Last updated297253MIT