A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceProvides tools to issue, verify, and export cryptographically signed receipts for AI agent actions, enabling tamper-proof audit trails for compliance with regulations like the EU AI Act.
4
55
1
MIT
Agent Receipts
Server Details
Issue & verify signed (ed25519), hash-chained, timestamped provenance receipts for agent actions.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: creation, listing, and verification of receipts. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case (issue_receipt, list_receipts, verify_receipt), consistent except for the natural pluralization of list_receipts.
Tool Count5/5
3 tools is perfect for the focused domain of receipt management. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: create, list, and verify. For an immutable audit trail, no update or delete is needed, and verify doubles as a get.
Available Tools
3 toolsissue_receiptAInspect
Mint a verifiable provenance receipt for an autonomous-agent action. Returns a signed (ed25519), content-hashed (SHA-256), server-timestamped receipt that is hash-chained to this agent's prior receipts (tamper-evident audit trail). Pass the raw inputs/outputs (we hash them — raw data is never stored) OR pre-computed sha256 hashes. Use for compliance, audit trails, and dispute resolution of agentic actions. PAID: $0.01 USDC/call via x402.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | What the agent did, e.g. 'sent_payment' or 'approved_refund' or 'tool_call:search'. | |
| inputs | No | Raw inputs to the action (any JSON). Hashed to a commitment; raw data not stored. | |
| outputs | No | Raw outputs/result of the action (any JSON). Hashed to a commitment; raw data not stored. | |
| agent_id | No | Stable identifier for the acting agent (chains group by this). | |
| metadata | No | Optional small key/value context (model, version, request id, etc.). | |
| inputs_hash | No | Alternatively, a pre-computed sha256 hex (or 'sha256:<hex>') of inputs. | |
| outputs_hash | No | Alternatively, a pre-computed sha256 hex (or 'sha256:<hex>') of outputs. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently explains that inputs are hashed and not stored, the receipt is signed, content-hashed, timestamped, and hash-chained. This covers key behaviors, though auth requirements or error conditions are omitted.
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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a thorough overview including the return format, hash-chaining, and privacy. Minor gaps exist, such as no mention of error handling or rate limits.
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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying that inputs/outputs are hashed and not stored, and that inputs_hash/outputs_hash are alternatives for pre-computed hashes. This exceeds the schema alone.
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 'Mint a verifiable provenance receipt' as a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings list_receipts and verify_receipt by focusing on creation.
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?
It states 'Use for compliance, audit trails, and dispute resolution' and mentions the $0.01/call cost. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_receiptsAInspect
List the receipt hash-chain for an agent_id, newest first (id, action, timestamp, sequence, hashes, verifyUrl). Use to audit everything a given agent has attested. FREE.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max receipts (default 25, max 100). | |
| agent_id | Yes | The agent whose receipts to list. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool lists receipts and the fields returned, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result structure. Every word is useful, and the term 'FREE' is minor but harmless. No wasted content.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage, and result fields. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or limit behavior beyond schema, but for a standard list tool it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage on parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the expected result fields (id, action, timestamp, sequence, hashes, verifyUrl) and indicating the order, which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand what data will be returned.
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 lists receipt hash-chains for an agent, specifying the fields returned and the order (newest first). It also provides a usage context ('audit everything a given agent has attested'), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to audit everything a given agent has attested'), which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct alternatives, though the sibling tools (issue_receipt, verify_receipt) are distinct enough that it's not a major gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_receiptAInspect
Verify a receipt by id (or by passing the full receipt object). Recomputes the content hash, confirms the id commits to the body, and checks the ed25519 signature. Returns the verification checks plus the provenance record (action, agent, input/output hashes, timestamp, chain position). FREE.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Receipt id, e.g. 'rcpt_...'. | |
| receipt | No | Alternatively, the full receipt object to verify offline-style. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the verification process: recomputing hash, confirming id commitment, checking ed25519 signature, and returning checks plus provenance. It is transparent about being a read-like operation (no mention of side effects).
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential detail without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return value (verification checks plus provenance record). Parameter documentation is sufficient. Sibling tools are not differentiated in the description, but purpose clarity compensates. Overall, it covers the necessary context for a simple tool.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the alternative usage ('offline-style') and the relationship between 'id' and 'receipt' parameters. This aids correct parameter selection.
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 action (verify), resource (receipt), and two invocation modes (by id or full object). It also lists specific verification steps (hash, id commit, signature). This differentiates it from sibling tools issue_receipt and list_receipts.
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 implies usage for verifying receipts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides basic guidance on parameters but lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceIssue and verify signed receipts for agent actions, enabling durable, independently checkable proof of policy decisions. Supports offline verification via get_keyset and verify_receipt tools without an account.
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides cryptographic truth infrastructure for AI agents, enabling them to seal content with SHA-256 and Ed25519, verify receipts, anchor them to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps, generate citations, and audit chains of receipts.
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEvery agent action is recorded in a SHA-256 hash chain. Prove to clients that your agent did what it said it did. Record, query, verify, and export agent activity.3571MIT