Ministry of Gems — Gemmology & Gemstones

Verify a Digital Gemstone Passport

verify_gem_passport

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cryptographically verify a Ministry of Gems Digital Gemstone Passport by stone ID. Recomputes the SHA-256 digest of the signed record and checks its Ed25519 (EdDSA) signature against the house public key, then returns the attested record: species, carat, dimensions, cut, colour, clarity, origin, treatment and certificate status. Use when a buyer asks whether a stone or its passport is genuine, or before quoting any fact about a specific Ministry of Gems stone.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stone_id`	Yes	Stone ID as printed on the passport or product page, e.g. "12322", "RUBY-B0797", "80067".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`found`	No
`title`	No
`active`	No	False when the house has revoked or superseded this passport.
`issued`	No
`record`	No
`sha256`	No
`status`	No	active, revoked or superseded.
`stone_id`	No
`verified`	No	True only when digest and signature both check out. A withdrawn passport can still be verified:true — read active/withdrawn before relying on the record.
`withdrawn`	No
`corpus_url`	No
`fingerprint`	No
`product_url`	No
`register_url`	No
`withdrawn_on`	No
`digest_matches`	No
`signature_valid`	No
`withdrawn_reason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / active

Added value: +{
+  "description": "False when the house has revoked or superseded this passport.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / status / description
```
Added value: +"active, revoked or superseded."
```

changedOutput schema / properties / verified / description

Previous value: -"True only when digest and signature both check out."New value: +"True only when digest and signature both check out. A withdrawn passport can still be verified:true — read active/withdrawn before relying on the record."

addedOutput schema / properties / withdrawn
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / withdrawn_on
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / withdrawn_reason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

AddedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail: it recomputes a digest and verifies a signature against the house public key, and enumerates the attested fields returned. It omits what happens on verification failure (error vs. a status field), which is the main behavioral question left open.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the usage trigger. The enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is dense rather than padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and invocation context adequately. The only meaningful gap is failure semantics — an agent cannot tell whether an unverifiable passport raises an error or returns a negative attestation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single stone_id parameter is documented with three concrete example formats, so the description only restates 'by stone ID'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Cryptographically verify a Ministry of Gems Digital Gemstone Passport by stone ID' — and explains the mechanism (SHA-256 digest plus Ed25519 signature check). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_gem_product, lab_report_check, or gem_properties, which retrieve rather than attest.

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 names trigger conditions: when a buyer questions whether a stone or passport is genuine, or before quoting any fact about a specific stone. It does not name the sibling it replaces (e.g., use this instead of get_gem_product when provenance must be attested), so the routing is clear but not fully comparative.

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

All Ministry of Gems — Gemmology & Gemstones tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?