Skip to main content
Glama

droplinked

by com.droplinked.mcp

verify_lender

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve the public profile for a lender by lenderId. Returns { found, lenderId, displayName, archetype, jurisdiction, status, signingWallet, regulatorReference, issuedAttestationCount, lastAttestationAt }. Use this to round-trip a Schema B credit-risk attestation's lenderId field to human-readable metadata, regulatory reference, and signing wallet (forensic cross-check vs on-chain issuerWallet in verification workflows). Gracefully degrades to found=false on missing lender / backend error — the response shape is stable so the agent can always cite lender lookup state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lenderIdYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses graceful degradation to found=false on missing lender/backend error and notes the stable response shape. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, providing actionable behavioral detail without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a use-case and behavior note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description covers the return shape, error behavior, and practical usage context. Combined with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the tool without gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the parameter lenderId is simple. The description adds meaning by explaining that lenderId is used to resolve the profile and is also part of the return shape, plus implies it can be missing. It doesn't elaborate on format beyond the schema's pattern, but the context is sufficient.

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 'Resolve the public profile for a lender by lenderId' with a specific verb, resource, and identifier. It lists the exact return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lender_history and verify_credit_risk.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this to round-trip a Schema B credit-risk attestation's lenderId field...' giving a precise scenario and cross-check purpose. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the targeted use case is clear enough.

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

All droplinked 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as find_inventory, search_products, list_shop_products, and get_product all dealing with product discovery/retrieval with subtle differences. Similarly, verify_brand_attestation and get_brand_attestation_status could be confused, as could get_trust_dossier and get_underwriting_signals. The sheer number of verification and lookup tools makes it difficult to pick the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

The cart tools use a dot-separated camelCase convention (cart.addLine, cart.updateLineQuantity), while the rest use snake_case with varied verbs (find_, get_, list_, search_, verify_, request_, quote_, etc.). This mixing of conventions and inconsistent verb choices (e.g., find_inventory vs search_products vs list_shop_products) makes the tool names unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded. The guidance suggests 25+ tools is too many, and this server exceeds that threshold. While the domain spans commerce, trust attestations, and lending, the count is excessive for a coherent single-server toolkit.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface is extremely broad, covering cart management, checkout, product discovery, trust verification, and lending workflows. However, there are notable gaps: no cart retrieval or order history, no revoke/update for attestations, and some key lending tools (quote_credit_terms, report_repayment) are scaffolded but not yet functional, creating dead ends.

Resources