Skip to main content
Glama

Verify a SafePay seal or attestation

safepay_verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies a SafePay seal id (SP-XXXXXXXXXX), a signed receipt or a precheck attestation against SafePay's published Ed25519 key. Returns whether it is genuine and intact, and what it states.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "safepay_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sealNoA seal id such as SP-3F9A0C21BE
attestationNoA {body, hash, signature} SafePay document

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: verification is against SafePay's published Ed25519 key, and the result indicates whether the item is genuine and intact as well as what it states.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The definition is two compact sentences, front-loads the verification purpose, and includes the key format example without unnecessary wording.

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 two-parameter, annotation-rich verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cryptographic basis, and the nature of the returned result. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain selection or combination of the optional seal and attestation parameters.

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 schema already carries the primary parameter documentation. The description adds some meaning by naming the accepted forms (seal id, signed receipt, precheck attestation), but it does not clarify whether one or both optional parameters should be supplied or how they interact.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ("Verifies") and concrete resources: a SafePay seal id, signed receipt, or precheck attestation. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as safepay_check_payment or safepay_recent_checks.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description identifies the kinds of inputs that can be verified, which implies when the tool should be used. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison with the sibling payment-checking tools.

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.