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.
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 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: creation, listing, and verification of receipts. No overlap in functionality.
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.
3 tools is perfect for the focused domain of receipt management. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.
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.
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cryptographic details (ed25519, SHA-256, timestamp, hash-chaining), data handling (raw data not stored), and cost ($0.01 USDC/call). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.
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 plus paid note, all relevant. Information is front-loaded and efficient. Slight repetition of hash details, but overall concise.
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?
Covers main functionality, privacy, and cost. No output schema, and description does not specify return structure (e.g., receipt format). Could elaborate on what the returned receipt contains beyond signature and hash chain.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: explains inputs/outputs are hashed and not stored, pre-computed hashes accepted, action field purpose, and metadata usage.
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 'Mint a verifiable provenance receipt' with specific verb and resource. 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states use cases: 'compliance, audit trails, and dispute resolution'. Also explains alternative input methods (raw vs pre-computed hashes). Does not mention when not to use or compare directly to siblings.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max receipts (default 25, max 100). | |
| agent_id | Yes | The agent whose receipts to list. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses ordering ('newest first'), output fields, and that it is free. No annotations provided, so description covers key behavioral aspects for a read/list tool.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, output, and ordering.
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?
List of fields compensates for missing output schema. Includes ordering and use case. Sufficient for a simple list tool with no nested objects.
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% with parameter descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it lists receipt hash-chain for an agent_id, ordered newest first, with specific fields. Distinguishes from siblings (issue, verify) by focusing on listing/auditing.
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?
States 'Use to audit everything a given agent has attested.' Provides clear use case but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.
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.
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description details the verification steps (recompute hash, check id and signature) and the return values (verification checks, provenance). This provides good insight into behavior without 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, process, returns. It is concise and front-loaded. The word 'FREE' at the end is slightly odd but not distracting.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists return contents (verification checks, provenance). With 100% parameter coverage and no required parameters, the description covers the tool's functionality well.
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?
The description clarifies that 'id' and 'receipt' are alternatives, and mentions 'offline-style' for the receipt object. This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which are already present (100% coverage).
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 explicitly states the action ('Verify'), the resource ('a receipt'), and two modes of operation (by id or by passing the full receipt object). It clearly distinguishes from siblings 'issue_receipt' and 'list_receipts' by focusing on verification.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for verification but does not provide context like prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
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!