Skip to main content
Glama

graviti

by ai.thesingulariti

Integrity ledger (hash-chained, signed, Bitcoin-anchored)

get_ledger
Read-onlyIdempotent

Append-only version history of the index: each entry commits to the SHA-256 of the canonical index content and the previous entry's hash (rewriting history breaks every hash after it), is Ed25519-signed, and is anchored to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps. Returns entries plus independent verification instructions. Even Graviti cannot rewrite the record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: append-only semantics, hash-chained rewriting consequences, Ed25519 signatures, OpenTimestamps anchoring, and the strong immutability claim that 'even Graviti cannot rewrite the record.' This adds real 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It avoids fluff while covering behavior, output, and security properties.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and why the data is trustworthy. The lack of an output schema means entry structure is not detailed, but that is a minor gap given the simple invocation and rich behavioral context.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to augment. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific verb and resource: 'get' + an append-only version history of the index. It clearly conveys the tool's identity through hash-chaining, Ed25519 signing, and Bitcoin anchoring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings such as get_accountability_log.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 tamper-evident, verifiable history is needed—and notes that verification instructions are returned. It does not provide any explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives.

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

All graviti toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource: category comparisons, verified claims, gap analysis, intent matching, conversion logging, accountability events, and the index ledger. The only mild ambiguity is between category_landscape and match_intent, or between get_accountability_log and get_ledger, but the descriptions draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most read operations follow a clean get_ pattern, and the action tools use verb_noun naming. category_landscape deviates as a bare noun phrase, which is the main inconsistency, but overall the names remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for this domain: consumers can discover brands, inspect evidence, evaluate gaps, audit integrity, and record conversions without redundant operations or missing categories.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core workflows: discovery, verification lookup, gap analysis, audit/log integrity, and conversion attribution. There are minor gaps—no direct tool to create or update claims—but agents can accomplish the intended consumer-facing tasks without dead ends.

Resources