FreeSign

Get OpenTimestamps proof

get_ots_proof

Return the .ots proof (base64) for a given OpenTimestamps anchor on an envelope. Use the official ots-cli to verify offline against Bitcoin block headers. Each seal has two anchors: kind: "byterange" commits to the signed document, kind: "signed_attrs" commits to SHA-256 of the CMS SignedAttributes (which carry the post-quantum key commitment).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`anchor_id`	Yes
`envelope_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No
`status`	Yes
`anchor_id`	Yes
`envelope_id`	Yes
`proof_base64`	Yes	Complete .ots file bytes, base64.
`anchored_hash`	Yes
`calendar_urls`	No
`btc_block_hash`	No
`btc_block_height`	No

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It explains the output format (base64 .ots proof) and the meaning of the two anchor kinds, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or authentication requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, verification recommendation, anchor context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Has output schema, so return values are partially covered. Description adds context about anchor types and verification, but does not cover error situations, dependencies, or workflow integration with siblings. Given 0% param coverage, it is moderately complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what `envelope_id` and `anchor_id` represent directly, only indirectly references anchors. It mentions two anchor kinds but does not map them to the parameter pattern or required format.

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 returns the .ots proof (base64) for a given anchor on an envelope, specifying the two anchor kinds. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving proof data, not creating envelopes or verifying documents.

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 advises using `ots-cli` to verify offline, which is a usage hint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

All FreeSign 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creation of an envelope, retrieval of OTS proof, retrieval of full receipt, verification of audit chain integrity, and lookup by document hash. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_object' pattern with underscores (e.g., create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, verify_audit_chain). Verbs are clear and objects specific.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—envelope creation, evidence retrieval, and verification. No unnecessary tools and sufficient coverage for core operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers creation, evidence retrieval, and verification of audit chains and document hashes. A minor gap is the absence of a direct signature verification tool, but this is partially addressed by get_receipt providing signature data.

Resources

Need Help?