Anchor a content-creation event to the Knox chain; returns a C2PA-aligned, FRE 902-shaped bundle.
Anchor any creation event to the Knox event chain and return a self-authenticating provenance bundle. Three creation modes are supported: human_original (camera capture, original writing, recording), ai_generated (model + prompt + parameters anchored), and ai_assisted_hybrid (human-AI collaboration with edit chain). Returns the Knox anchor record, a C2PA-aligned envelope, and an FRE 902(13)/(14)-shape affidavit. Bonis Systems anchors what creators present; it does not adjudicate authorship, does not grant copyright, and does not enforce any IP claim. Requires a Knox Bearer API key on the Authorization header — unauthenticated calls are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ai | No | AI-generation metadata (required when source = ai_generated). | |
| name | Yes | Display name for the work (max 256 chars). | |
| human | No | Human-original metadata (optional when source = human_original). | |
| hybrid | No | Hybrid-creation metadata (required when source = ai_assisted_hybrid). | |
| source | Yes | Creation source. | |
| sizeBytes | No | Content size in bytes. | |
| contentHash | Yes | SHA-256 digest of the content as 64 lowercase hex chars. The content itself is not transmitted. | |
| contentType | No | MIME type (max 128 chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals authentication requirements (Knox Bearer API key) and that unauthenticated calls are rejected. It describes the return bundle (anchor record, C2PA envelope, affidavit) and functional limitations. Missing details like rate limits or error handling, but still strong disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise yet comprehensive, with a logical flow: purpose, modes, return value, disclaimers, and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, authentication, and return values. It explains the three modes and what the tool does not do. However, it could mention the expected response format (e.g., JSON) and any potential rate limits or quotas.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the three modes and the hybrid structure, but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description of the 'source' enum aligns with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool anchors creation events to the Knox event chain and returns a provenance bundle. It specifies three distinct creation modes (human_original, ai_generated, ai_assisted_hybrid), making the purpose unambiguous. With sibling tool verify_provenance, the creation focus is clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each creation mode based on the source parameter, providing clear contextual guidance. It also states what the tool does not do (adjudicate authorship, grant copyright, enforce IP). However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool verify_provenance or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify an anchored content-provenance record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior anchor_creation call), return the anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, and timestamp. Public — no authentication required. The verification path itself is also accessible at GET /api/knox/verify?hash=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | SHA-256 anchor hash (64 lowercase hex chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is public and requires no authentication, identifies return fields, and notes an alternative access method. It does not describe error cases or rate limits, but is adequate for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details on input/output, and ends with a public note. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, input, output, and public access. It does not include error handling or sample response, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a description and pattern for the 'hash' parameter. The description adds context that the hash is the payload_hash from a prior anchor_creation call, enhancing the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies an anchored content-provenance record using a SHA-256 hash, and specifies returned fields (anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, timestamp). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'anchor_creation' by being the verification counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the input hash comes from a prior anchor_creation call, implying it should be used after anchoring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative guidance beyond mentioning the GET endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Stamp any data to the Markovian chain for a verifiable provenance receipt. Proves timing, not truth.
Decode an SSTV audio recording and anchor its fingerprint and image hash to the Knox event chain.
Stamp content with permanent, verifiable provenance. Hash locally, verify free forever.
Verify structured evidence and return machine-verifiable provenance, assurance, and receipts.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one creates provenance records, the other verifies them. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: anchor_creation and verify_provenance.
With only 2 tools, the surface is very thin. This may be acceptable for a narrowly focused provenance server, but it feels incomplete for broader use.
The server covers creation and verification, but lacks any listing, deletion, or management capabilities. The domain may not need CRUD, but the omission of a list operation is notable.