Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentProof

by com.agentproofchain
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_log

Read-only

Verify an AgentProof log (JSONL, one signed entry per line) against the signer's base64 Ed25519 public key. Checks every signature and every hash link; reports VALID or the first entry that was edited, removed, inserted or forged. The log is checked in memory and not stored.

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": {
      "log": "<log>",
      "public_key": "<public_key>"
    },
    "name": "verify_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logYesthe log file contents (JSONL), up to ~5 MB
partialNotrue if this is a slice of a longer log (do not require the first entry to be genesis)
public_keyYessigner's base64 Ed25519 public key (32 bytes)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the verification scope (every signature and every hash link), the failure semantics (first edited/removed/inserted/forged entry), and that the log is processed in memory without persistence. It stops short of stating error behavior for malformed JSONL or inputs exceeding the ~5 MB bound.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is verified, what is checked and returned, and the side-effect-free processing guarantee. The verdict/return behavior is front-loaded alongside the action rather than buried, and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return value (VALID or the first bad entry), which is the key thing an agent needs. For a three-parameter read-only verification tool this is nearly complete; only malformed-input and size-limit error behavior are left unstated.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description only reinforces the log format (JSONL, one signed entry per line) and key format (base64 Ed25519, 32 bytes). The `partial` parameter — the one with the least obvious semantics — is not mentioned in the description at all, so no meaning is added beyond the 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?

Names a specific verb (Verify) and resource (AgentProof JSONL log) and pins down the mechanism: Ed25519 signature checks plus hash-link verification against a base64 public key. It also states the output shape (VALID or the first offending entry type), so an agent knows exactly what this tool answers and can distinguish it from the unrelated network siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — you call it when you have a log and a signer key and want an integrity verdict — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing, no mention of prerequisites such as where the public key comes from, and no guidance on what to do with an invalid result. The 'checked in memory and not stored' line gives useful context but is not routing guidance.

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

All AgentProof toolsInspect
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