identity_verify
Verify a signature over a message against a public key (never raises; True/False).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sig | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| public_key | Yes |
concordance
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed4 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - added
Input schema / properties / message / maxLengthAdded value: +4000 - added
Input schema / properties / public_key / maxLengthAdded value: +4000 - added
Input schema / properties / sig / maxLengthAdded value: +4000
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'never raises; True/False' discloses a behavioral guarantee (no exceptions, boolean return) that is not evident from the schema or annotations. This is useful, though it doesn't detail behavior on invalid input formats or other potential edge cases.
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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Verify', and includes a parenthetical behavioral note. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple verification tool, the core purpose and return behavior are covered. However, it omits any distinction from sibling verification tools and gives minimal parameter semantics, which could leave an agent uncertain about formats or use cases.
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?
The description clarifies the relationship between the three parameters by calling out 'signature over a message against a public key', adding meaning beyond the bare parameter names. However, with 0% schema coverage, it lacks format details or constraints beyond maxLength, so it only partially compensates.
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 states the tool verifies a signature over a message against a public key, specifying the operation and resources. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'verify' or 'badges_verify'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include verify and badges_verify, but no exclusions or contextual recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.