Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Semanto by Trooth

by co.trooth
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

A company's signed facts

semanto_facts
Read-onlyIdempotent

The company's signed facts as JSON-LD. No key needed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "trooth_id": "<trooth_id>"
    },
    "name": "semanto_facts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trooth_idYesThe company's Trooth ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely extra fact — no authentication key is needed — but omits what the returned 'signed facts' contain or how the signing works.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource is named first. Efficient, though the second sentence is a caveat rather than an elaboration of purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back; saying only 'JSON-LD' leaves the shape and content of the 'signed facts' unexplained. For a tool whose entire value is the returned attestation, this is a real gap.

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?

The description adds nothing about the single trooth_id parameter, but schema description coverage is 100% and the property is documented as 'The company's Trooth ID.' Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the semantics.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a resource ('signed facts') and an output format ('JSON-LD'), and 'No key needed' hints at an unauthenticated read. But 'facts' is an opaque domain term, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like semanto_read, semanto_verify, or semanto_receipts_list.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many other read/verify tools in the sibling list. The only guidance offered is that no key is required, which is about prerequisites rather than tool selection.

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

All Semanto by Trooth toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources