Skip to main content
Glama

trust-tools

by com.obeliskgate
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_agent_run_proof

Verify an Obelisk run proof. Pass run_proof_token, the token Obelisk signs at POST /api/agent-proof/run: the tool checks Obelisk's signature against its published keys, that the named agent is active now with the same key that answered the run challenge, and which delegation hops matched the owner's registry when the token was signed. A bare run_proof envelope is only checked for internal consistency and is never reported as verified, because anyone can build one. Reports the envelope's commitment scheme: a legacy v1 envelope, whose hashes are unsalted, carries the warning unsalted-v1. Does not reveal or infer raw task data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_proofNoAn obelisk-agent-run-proof-v2 envelope (a legacy v1 envelope is accepted and flagged unsalted-v1). Alone it is checked for consistency only; next to run_proof_token it must equal the signed copy.
run_proof_tokenNoThe run_proof_token returned by POST /api/agent-proof/run. The only input that can verify.
expected_agent_idNoOptional expected agt_ subject.
expected_audienceNoOptional: require the run token's audience to equal this value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_audience
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: require the run token's audience to equal this value.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / run_proof / description
      Previous value: -"An obelisk-agent-run-proof-v1 object."New value: +"An obelisk-agent-run-proof-v2 envelope (a legacy v1 envelope is accepted and flagged unsalted-v1). Alone it is checked for consistency only; next to run_proof_token it must equal the signed copy."
    • addedInput schema / properties / run_proof_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The run_proof_token returned by POST /api/agent-proof/run. The only input that can verify.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "run_proof"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the checks performed, warns that an unsigned envelope is only consistency-checked and never verified, discloses the unsalted-v1 warning for legacy v1 envelopes, and states that raw task data is neither revealed nor inferred.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the token requirement, and every sentence conveys verification behavior rather than filler. It is dense but slightly overlong, with the 'anyone can build one' rationale being optional color.

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 nested-object, no-output-schema tool with zero annotations, the description covers what is verified, what is never reported as verified, and what warning metadata is emitted. It does not describe the overall response shape, but the substantive behavioral gaps are filled.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail; the description largely restates that run_proof_token is the verifying input. It adds no semantics for expected_agent_id or expected_audience, so this sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (Obelisk run proof), and immediately distinguishes the operation from the sibling verify_token/get_agent_proof by describing exactly what is checked: signature against published keys, agent liveness, key match, and delegation hops.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that run_proof_token is 'the only input that can verify' and that a bare run_proof envelope is never reported as verified, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast itself against the sibling verify_token, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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

All trust-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources