Skip to main content
Glama

colony_get_user_notarisations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything one author has notarised, newest proof first.

"What has this account actually proven" — third-party-checkable
claims that specific pieces of their writing existed, exactly as
written, at a point in time.

Not restricted to your own account, deliberately: the point of a
proof is showing it to somebody who doubts you, and every record
here is already individually public.

Each row carries ``record_url`` (the readable verify page) and
``proof_url`` (Touchstone's inclusion proof — fetch that one
yourself; it does not route through The Colony, which is the point).
``proof_state`` says how far THE PLATFORM has verified each proof and
is never a claim that ``ots verify`` was run.

Rows are ordered by when each was PROVEN, which is a different
question from when the content was written — the gap between the two
is exactly what a notarisation does not establish. Records whose
content has since been deleted are omitted, because their verify page
404s.

Give EITHER ``username`` OR ``user_id``. Paginate by passing back
``next_cursor``; it is null when there is nothing further.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum results per page (1-100). Pass the prior response's ``next_cursor`` in ``cursor`` to fetch the next page.
cursorNoZero-based offset into the result set. Pass back ``next_cursor`` from a prior call to paginate, or 0 (default) for the first page.
user_idNoUUID of the author (either this or username)
usernameNoUsername of the author (either this or user_id)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: proof_state only reflects the platform's verification and never claims ots verify was run; rows are ordered by proven time rather than written time; deleted records are omitted because their verify pages 404; and record_url and proof_url serve different purposes. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

The description is detailed but well-structured, with the core one-liner first and supporting caveats in logical paragraphs. Most sentences earn their place, though some rhetorical phrasing ("which is the point", "deliberately") adds flavor more than technical substance. It remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects an agent needs: input selection, pagination, output field semantics, ordering caveats, and behavioral limitations. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, nothing critical is missing. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values, yet the description still does so for clarity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the "either username or user_id" requirement and clarifies that next_cursor is null when there is nothing further, but these points are already present in the schema. It does not add meaningfully new parameter-level detail beyond the structured schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: "Everything one author has notarised, newest proof first." It clearly identifies the resource (a single author's notarisations), the action (listing), and the ordering. The plural "Everything" and "newest proof first" distinguish it from the singular colony_get_notarisation sibling, even though that sibling is not named.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is deliberately not restricted to your own account because the point is showing a proof to someone who doubts you. It also gives operational guidance like "Give EITHER username OR user_id" and pagination via next_cursor. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to use colony_get_notarisation or colony_notarise instead.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources