SSTV Decoder
Server Details
Decode an SSTV audio recording and anchor its fingerprint and image hash to the Knox event chain.
- 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 have clearly distinct purposes: one for decoding SSTV audio and anchoring the result, the other for verifying a previous anchor. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case ('decode_sstv', 'verify_sstv_decode'). The naming is predictable and consistent.
Two tools is appropriate for the narrow domain of SSTV decoding and verification. Each tool serves a critical, non-redundant function.
The tool set covers the core workflow: decode and verify. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose; the verification path is also accessible via API.
Available Tools
2 toolsdecode_sstvAInspect
Demodulate a presented slow-scan-television (SSTV) audio recording, anchor the audio fingerprint and the decoded image hash to the Knox event chain, and return a self-authenticating receipt bundle (Knox anchor + C2PA-aligned envelope + FRE 902(13)/(14)-shape affidavit). Audio bytes are NOT retained — only the SHA-256 fingerprint and the decoded image are anchored. Bonis Systems does not capture audio on its own; the audio must be presented by the caller (a public WebSDR recording, a customer-controlled SDR capture they consent to submit, or audio they own). Phase 1 supports Martin M1 (VIS code 0x2C, 320×256 RGB). Other VIS codes return mode = 'unsupported' with detected hex. Requires a Knox Bearer API key on the Authorization header — unauthenticated calls are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name for the recording (max 256 chars). | |
| capture | No | Optional capture-context metadata. | |
| sampleRate | No | Required when audioFormat = 'pcm16-mono'. | |
| audioBase64 | Yes | Base64-encoded audio. Either a complete WAV file (RIFF/WAVE, 8/16/24-bit PCM or 32-bit IEEE float, mono or stereo, 4-192 kHz) or raw 16-bit signed little-endian mono PCM samples. | |
| audioFormat | No | Audio container ('wav' default, or 'pcm16-mono'). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: audio bytes not retained, only fingerprint and decoded image anchored, authentication required, unsupported modes return specific error. Lacks statement on whether operation is read-only or has side effects beyond anchoring, but overall transparent.
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?
Description is informative but slightly long; however, every sentence adds value. Clear structure covering purpose, limitations, and requirements.
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 complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the high-level return (receipt bundle) and constraints. More detail on return format would be beneficial, but current info is functional for an agent.
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%, but description adds context: explains audioBase64 can be WAV or raw PCM, sampleRate requirement, and capture metadata purpose. Goes beyond schema descriptions with use-case details.
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 demodulates SSTV audio, anchors fingerprints, and returns a receipt bundle. It specifies supported mode (Martin M1) and distinguishes from sibling tool 'verify_sstv_decode' by focusing on decode functionality.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use (demodulate SSTV), what not to do (audio not retained, caller must provide audio), and requirements (Knox Bearer API key). Also notes limitations (Phase 1 supports only Martin M1).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_sstv_decodeAInspect
Verify a previously anchored SSTV-decode record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior decode_sstv 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, description discloses return fields (anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, timestamp) and public nature. Implicitly read-only, no side effects mentioned.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states core purpose. Efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Single parameter fully documented, return values described, and no output schema needed. Complete for a verification tool with clear inputs and outputs.
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 already covers hash format; description adds real-world context ('payload_hash from a prior decode_sstv call'), improving understanding beyond the schema alone.
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?
Description clearly states 'verify a previously anchored SSTV-decode record' and specifies input (SHA-256 anchor hash). Distinguishes from sibling decode_sstv by referencing 'prior decode_sstv 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?
Description explains when to use (after decode_sstv, with the payload_hash) and notes public access. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear.
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!