Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

receipt_lookup

P72 unified receipt ledger (ADR-010): every receipt-issuing surface (cross-lens verify, tracker verify, verdict, profile, explain, GhostRoute, Sigil/ATAP, compliance export) records the exact signed document it returned, keyed by one ID space.

Use this tool when:

  • An agent holds a receipt and wants to confirm TunnelMind logged it (existence + canonical hash) before trusting it in an audit trail.

  • The owning customer wants to re-fetch a receipt body by id.

Inputs:

  • id (path, required): the unified receipt_id (UUIDv7, GR-YYYY-NNNNNNN, or ATAP-RCPT-…) or a lens-native alias.

Returns:

  • Always: receipt_id, lens, payload_hash (0x + SHA-256 of the RFC 8785 canonicalization of the stored document), key_id, attestation_strength, issued_at, and leaf_index (null until the transparency-log sequencer enrolls the row).

  • Owner only (authenticated caller matching the receipt's customer): subject and the full stored receipt document. Receipt bodies are never public.

Cost:

  • Counts as one request against the daily rate limit.

Latency:

  • Typical: <300ms (one Supabase read).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses return fields, owner-only data, cost counting, and latency. No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Could mention authentication specifics, but sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured with sections and bullet points. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly long but every sentence is informative. No redundancy.

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?

Explains return values in detail with no output schema, and covers cost and latency. Minor omission: what happens on missing ID, but overall complete for a lookup 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?

Since input schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value by enumerating valid ID formats (UUIDv7, GR-YYYY-NNNNNNN, ATAP-RCPT-…, lens-native alias).

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 is a unified receipt ledger for looking up receipts by ID across multiple surfaces. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the unified nature and specific ID space.

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?

Explicitly provides two use cases: confirming receipt existence/hash and re-fetching by owner. Does not list when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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

All TunnelMind Data API 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources