YourAITools MCP Hub

AgentGate: Check an AI agent (Concordium registry)

check_agent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an AI agent is registered in the Concordium Agent Registry (CIS-8004), Active (not revoked), and Verified by Concordium (its Agent Card hash matches the on-chain metadata_hash). Accepts a badge (CIS-2 token address, e.g. Mf22soLh1NuZYFgBK8iSs, or CAIP-19 form) or a Concordium owner account address. Free tier: returns the verdict; the full record is available from the paid x402 endpoint.

[AgentGate via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as AgentGate's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: check $0.005 per call, with a credits key (Authorization: Bearer yatc_...) or x402 (USDC; the hub returns the payment terms). Failed tool calls aren't charged: credits are refunded automatically and x402 payments only settle on success.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "check_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Badge (CIS-2 token address, short or CAIP-19 form) or Concordium account address
`tier`	No	Paid tier: check $0.005. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
`network`	No	Concordium network	mainnet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / id / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "Mf22soLh1NuZYFgBK8iSs"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / network / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "mainnet"
+]
```
First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing what 'Verified' concretely means (Agent Card hash equals on-chain metadata_hash), what the free tier withholds, the $0.005 price, accepted auth mechanisms, and the failure semantics (credits refunded, x402 settles only on success). That is exactly the payment and result-scope context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose and verification criteria are front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph is hub-level payment boilerplate rather than tool-specific behavior, which is useful but dilutes focus slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return burden; it says the free tier 'returns the verdict' but never indicates the verdict's shape (e.g., separate registered/active/verified booleans plus a record pointer). Beyond that, the three parameters and the payment model are fully covered.

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 already documents id (short/CAIP-19 badge or account address), the 'check' tier enum, and the network enum. The description restates the identifier forms but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check whether an AI agent is registered in the Concordium Agent Registry') and enumerates the exact three conditions tested: registered, Active (not revoked), and Verified via on-chain metadata_hash match. This is clearly separable from siblings like check_mcp_server, check_token, or screen_address.

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?

Explains the accepted identifier forms and, importantly, the free-vs-paid path: free tier returns only the verdict, the full record requires the paid x402 endpoint. It does not explicitly rule out sibling tools (e.g., 'use check_token for fungible tokens'), so it stops short of a 5, but the context for use is clear.

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

All YourAITools MCP Hub tools Inspect

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

Need Help?