Skip to main content
Glama

invinoveritas

by com.babyblueviper

conformance_certify

Publish a CURRENTLY-certified /conformance verifier's live grade as a permanent, invinoveritas-SIGNED /ledger entry — Nostr-broadcast immediately, Bitcoin-OTS-anchored within ~15min, same as every other ledger entry. The grade itself stays FREE and neutral (GET /conformance / /conformance.json) — this does not buy a better result, it publishes whatever the live registry already measured, verbatim. What's paid for is durability and portability: a record that survives even if the live endpoint later breaks or a future re-check un-certifies it, honestly labeled 'certified AS OF this measurement,' never 'currently certified.' Only a verifier with certified:true on GET /conformance.json can be certified this way. Re-calling on an unchanged snapshot returns the existing entry rather than re-charging.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe verifier's exact name as listed on GET /conformance.json (must currently show certified:true).
noteNoOptional short context for the ledger entry.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Describes beyond annotations: creates a signed entry, broadcasts, anchors in Bitcoin, provides honesty labels. Annotations show non-read-only, non-idempotent, etc., and description adds context about durability and re-call behavior.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly verbose. Each sentence provides value, but could be more concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral context: creation process, broadcasting, anchoring, and idempotency on re-call. The agent has enough info to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains 'name' must match exact name with certified:true, and 'note' is optional context. This enriches understanding beyond property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool publishes a verifier's live grade as a permanent, signed ledger entry. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like ledger_submit by specifying it is for conformance certification and mentions the grade is free.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: only for verifiers with certified:true on GET /conformance.json. Also explains what it does not do (does not buy a better result) and mentions re-calling behavior.

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

All invinoveritas toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'decision' and 'reason', both offering advisory output. Also, 'review', 'witness', 'prove', and 'verify_proof' overlap in the proofs space, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall, an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase and underscores (snake_case), which is consistent. However, the verbs vary: some are imperative (e.g., 'browse', 'execute'), while others are nouns (e.g., 'signals', 'ledger'), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the surface is too large for a well-scoped server. Many functions could be separated (e.g., memory, workspace, feedback, marketplace). This excess makes it harder for an agent to navigate and select the right tool quickly.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core CRUD for memory and workspace, plus feedback, marketplace purchase, bounties, and verification. However, there is no tool to list or search marketplace listings, and workspace creation is only implicit via 'execute'. These gaps hinder fluid workflows.

Resources