Skip to main content
Glama

invinoveritas

by com.babyblueviper

witness

Read-only

Anchor a THIRD PARTY's exact claim bytes, unmodified and unjudged. Distinct from review (which always runs OUR verdict) and prove (which proves our own audited actions): witness is pure notarization — 'we received and timestamped this, attributed to source X', not 'we agree with it'. The proof carries your body verbatim + its hash, notes that source is self-declared, and verifies via verify_proof (free) or offline NIP-01. Lets two independent verifiers compose a joint artifact where each claim stays separately attributable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe exact claim to anchor, byte-for-byte (max 16000 chars)
sourceYesWho this claim is attributed to (self-declared, NOT verified by us)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the source is self-declared and unverified, describes the proof contents (body verbatim + hash), and notes it is pure notarization—not agreement. These details go well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, giving the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 but each sentence contributes: differentiation from siblings, behavioral explanation, verification methods, and the joint-artifact use case. It is slightly lengthy but contains no filler, making it efficiently structured.

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?

The description covers the input semantics, output expectations (proof with body and hash), verification paths, and an additional edge use case (joint artifact). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently fills that gap.

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%, with both parameters clearly described (body byte-for-byte, source self-declared). The description reinforces these facts but does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Anchor') and identifies the resource ('THIRD PARTY's exact claim bytes, unmodified and unjudged'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings review and prove, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives ('Distinct from review... and prove...'), clarifying that witness is for pure notarization. It also names verification methods (verify_proof, offline NIP-01), providing clear usage context without leaving the agent to guess.

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