Skip to main content
Glama

Knox Anchor

by com.bonissystems

anchor_event

Anchor a generic agent action to the Knox chain. Accepts any event_type from the canonical taxonomy plus a payload object. Returns the anchor sequence, payload hash, predecessor hash, timestamp, and verify URL. Requires a Knox Bearer API key on the Authorization header — unauthenticated calls are rejected. Provision a key by contacting Bonis Systems.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYesJSON-serializable payload describing the agent action. Hashed verbatim into the chain; do not include secrets — the payload is recoverable on verify.
event_typeYesCanonical event type (call list_event_types to enumerate). Free-form strings are accepted but not federal-citation-grade.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does so by specifying the required Authorization header, rejection of unauthenticated calls, key provisioning process, and the exact return fields. However, it does not mention side effects like immutability or possible failure modes, which prevents a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers returns, authentication, and key provisioning without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, return values, and usage constraints well. Minor omissions like error handling or example usage are not critical for this level of complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with both event_type and payload having descriptive comments. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 anchors a generic agent action to the Knox chain, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'generic agent action' as opposed to file hash or MCP tool call anchoring.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides context (generic actions, canonical event types) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like anchor_file_hash or anchor_mcp_tool_call. The 'generic' qualifier implies usage for non-specific actions, but alternatives are not directly named.

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

All Knox Anchor 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct: anchoring, verifying, health, descriptor, and event taxonomy. However, anchor_event and anchor_mcp_tool_call overlap in that anchor_event accepts any event type including the MCP tool call event, though the latter provides structured convenience metadata. This creates minor potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: anchor_*, get_*, list_*, verify_*. The verbs clearly indicate actions, and the pattern is uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a blockchain anchoring service. The count covers core operations, verification, health checks, and informational endpoints without bloat or redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the lifecycle: anchoring via multiple event types, verification by hash, health monitoring, descriptor access, and event taxonomy listing. Since anchoring is append-only, no update/delete operations are expected, and the surface is complete for the domain.

Resources