Skip to main content
Glama

invinoveritas

by com.babyblueviper

ledger_submit

Propose your OWN /review(sign=true) proof as a featured entry on invinoveritas's public /ledger. Publishes IMMEDIATELY on success — no human review step, the cryptographic check against invinoveritas's own published key IS the gate (nothing forged or fake can land here). Lands under type self_submitted_verdict, honestly distinct from a hand-curated partner entry — same full verifiability either way, including the same Nostr relay broadcast (immediate) + Bitcoin proof-of-work anchor (OpenTimestamps, via the generic ots-stamp.timer, ~15min) every other entry gets. Call /review with sign=true first, then pass the returned proof.event here. Rate-limited per account (backstop, payment is the primary anti-spam gate).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional short context: what this verdict was for, why it's worth featuring.
eventYesThe signed Nostr event from a prior /review(sign=true) call — the exact proof.event object that response returned.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Describes immediate publication without human review, cryptographic check as gate, same verifiability, Nostr relay broadcast immediate, and Bitcoin OTS anchor ~15min. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information. Slightly long but justified by complexity. Could be more concise but still well-structured.

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?

Covers prerequisites, outcome, constraints, and broadcasting behavior. No output schema, but explanation of immediate publication and anchor timing suffices. Adequate for a complex tool with nested objects.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: note is optional context, event is required from prior /review call. It clarifies the nested object structure. Adds meaningful value over raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool submits a proof to be featured on a public ledger, distinguishes it from curated entries, and mentions the specific type 'self_submitted_verdict'. It uses specific verbs and resources, differentiating it from siblings like ledger (read-only) and bounty_submit.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call /review with sign=true first and pass the returned event. Also mentions rate limiting and payment as anti-spam. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear prerequisites.

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