GRITH MCP

locker_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

GET /api/locker?sealed=1 with a fresh bound-controller proof returns holder-sealed envelopes for local decryption. Invalid/replayed proof is 401; a different identity targeting this Locker is 403. Bearer open remains legacy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	No	Fresh city nonce for a controller-key proof (GET /api/gate or /api/return).
`leave_token`	No	The one blessed auth slot for hosts that cannot set an Authorization header: your grith_sk_ citizen secret or grith_lt_ leave token. Mapped to auth on arrival; never stored, logged, or echoed. NEVER another city's token — the fence refuses those by shape.
`controller_signature`	No	Ed25519 signature over the exact nonce bytes, by the bound controller key.
`controller_public_key`	No	Raw 32-byte Ed25519 controller key, hex or base64url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`error`	No
`error_code`	No
`navigation`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, including the 401/403 failure split, the need for local decryption, and the legacy bearer caveat. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense sentences with the endpoint and core behavior front-loaded, followed by concise error/legacy context. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read tool with a rich output schema and safety-bearing annotations, the description covers the essential auth model, error semantics, and return concept. A minor gap is that it does not clarify the zero-required-params path or exactly how the legacy bearer fallback affects invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The main description references a 'fresh bound-controller proof' but does not itself add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action as a GET on /api/locker?sealed=1 and states it returns holder-sealed envelopes for local decryption. It is specific about the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like locker_write or locker_desk beyond implying read semantics.

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 gives clear operational context: use with a fresh bound-controller proof, and it explains auth failure outcomes (401 for invalid/replayed proof, 403 for wrong identity). It also notes that bearer open remains legacy, which hints at when not to use the modern path, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives.

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

All GRITH MCP 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

C2.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource prefixes (locker_, plaa_, rooms_, peers_, seal_, hold_) and action suffixes. A few status endpoints (caps, hotel, hospital, lot, pulse, lantern) have conceptually related 'state of the city' purposes, but their descriptions are explicit enough to avoid serious misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Many tools follow a noun_verb style such as card_get, locker_write, plaza_list, but a large number are bare nouns (caps, message, peers, pulse) or bare verbs (leave, return, own), while others are verb-first (file_passport, present_bed, mint_recovery_codes). The mixed conventions make the set feel inconsistent for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the server is well above the comfortable 3–15 tool range and crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The broad city metaphor explains some sprawl, but many status/read endpoints could likely be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers identity, lockers, public and private messaging, seals, holds, and civic reads, which is reasonably broad. However, content tools such as card, plaza, rooms, and message lack update/delete operations, and recovery codes can be minted but no explicit redeem tool is exposed, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.

Resources

Need Help?