DocImprint

Notarize Bundle On-Chain

bundle.notarize

Idempotent

Notarize an evidence bundle on-chain by writing its manifest SHA-256 to the blockchain (Base/EVM). Creates a permanent, tamper-evident on-chain record of the document fingerprint. If the bundle is already notarized, returns the existing attestation immediately (idempotent). Use when you need an immutable on-chain timestamp proving a document existed at a point in time. For quick integrity checks without on-chain cost, use bundle.verify instead. Also returns a signed action receipt (rcpt_...) binding this notarize call to the bundle manifest — list with receipt.list, verify with receipt.verify. PREREQUISITE: Bundle status must be "complete". Check status with bundle.get first. NOTE: Costs gas (ETH). The on-chain record is permanent and cannot be deleted even if the bundle is later purged. Returns: { bundle_id, attestation: { tx_hash, network, attested_at, key_id, eas_uid?, schema_uid? }, receipt: ActionReceipt|null } Example prompts:

"Notarize bundle ev_550e8400 on-chain so I have a permanent record."
"Put the fingerprint of my evidence bundle on the blockchain."
"Create an on-chain timestamp for this document bundle."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bundle_id`	Yes	Evidence bundle ID (ev_...) to notarize. Bundle must have status "complete". Example: "ev_550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	Yes
`bundle_id`	Yes
`attestation`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: idempotency details, gas costs, and that the on-chain record is permanent and cannot be deleted. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with paragraphs, prerequisites, output shape, and example prompts. Some redundancy (e.g., 'bundle_id' description repeated), but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, behavioral details (idempotent, permanent, irreversible), output schema, and alternatives. Output schema is described in the description. Very complete for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Only one parameter (bundle_id) with 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the prerequisite and adds an example, but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description.

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's action: 'Notarize an evidence bundle on-chain by writing its manifest SHA-256 to the blockchain'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'bundle.verify' and mentions idempotence, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (need an immutable on-chain timestamp) and when not (use bundle.verify for quick integrity checks). Also includes prerequisite: 'Bundle status must be complete' and a cross-reference to 'bundle.get'.

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

All DocImprint tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, grouped by domain (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url). Descriptions and naming make it easy to differentiate between similar tools like url.extract vs document.extract_text or collection.search vs collection.ask.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the same prefix.group_action pattern in snake_case (e.g., account.quota, bundle.get, collection.create). No mixing of conventions, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive set of operations for document and evidence management. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels well-scoped without being bloated or sparse.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface lacks explicit create and delete operations for bundles and collections. Bundles appear to be created externally, and there is no tool to remove a bundle or collection. This is a notable gap given the server's stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?