Content Provenance
Server Details
Anchor a content-creation event to the Knox chain; returns a C2PA-aligned, FRE 902-shaped bundle.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one creates an anchored provenance record, the other verifies an existing one. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: 'anchor_creation' follows a noun_verb pattern, while 'verify_provenance' follows a verb_noun pattern. A consistent verb_noun style (e.g., 'create_anchor', 'verify_provenance') would be clearer.
Two tools is appropriate for a focused provenance server covering creation and verification. The count is minimal but sufficient for the domain.
The toolset covers the essential operations for content provenance—creation and verification. Given the immutability of provenance records, no update or delete tools are expected.
Available Tools
2 toolsanchor_creationAInspect
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). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns a specific bundle, does not adjudicate authorship or IP, and requires authentication. These details go well beyond basic functionality.
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 a single, well-structured paragraph of 5 sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, modes, return components, limitations, and authentication. It is front-loaded and concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, authentication, and return types. It could detail output schema elements but is otherwise comprehensive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter well. The description adds context about how modes relate to required fields but does not add significant new semantic information beyond 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 verb 'Anchor' and resource 'creation event to the Knox event chain'. It distinguishes three creation modes and specifies what the tool returns and does not do, making its purpose distinct from the sibling tool 'verify_provenance'.
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 the tool (for anchoring with specific creation modes) and includes important usage constraints (requires Bearer API key, does not adjudicate copyright). However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_provenanceAInspect
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). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields and that no authentication is required. It does not discuss potential limitations or side effects, but the information provided is adequate for a read-only verification 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 concise, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, return data, and accessibility. No superfluous information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the return values and the tool's context (public, linked to anchor_creation). It covers all necessary aspects.
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 already describes the parameter fully (SHA-256 hash, 64 hex chars). The description adds context by specifying that the hash is the payload_hash from a prior anchor_creation call, enhancing understanding beyond 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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify an anchored content-provenance record.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by referencing 'a prior anchor_creation call'.
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 when to use this tool (after anchor_creation) and notes that it requires no authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!