Skip to main content
Glama

Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services

Register Bio Trust Provider

register_bio_trust_provider
Destructive

BioTrust Service 13 — the Biosecurity Benchmark & Trust Registry. use it rather than assess_bio_risk for bio trust provider, not bio risk; an object with 25 fields including availability, checked_at. $1 USDC.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe name this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
actionNoThe action being recorded or evaluated.
claimsNoThe claims to evaluate, as a list of {subject, predicate, object} or as free text.
statusNoThe status this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
filtersNoThe filters this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
provider_idNoThe provider id this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
service_versionsNoThe service versions this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
signed_statementNoThe signed statement this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe `name` field of the response.
countNoThe `count` field of the response.
errorNoThe machine-readable error code, when the operation failed.
validYesWhether the artifact verified.
claimsNoThe `claims` field of the response.
detailYesHuman-readable explanation of the verdict.
reasonNoWhy the verdict was reached.
statusNoThe status of the operation.
serviceNoThe `service` field of the response.
versionNoThe `version` field of the response.
claim_idNoThe `claim_id` field of the response.
providersNoThe `providers` field of the response.
statementNoThe `statement` field of the response.
checked_atNoThe `checked_at` field of the response.
methodologyNoThe `methodology` field of the response.
provider_idNoThe `provider_id` field of the response.
availabilityNoThe `availability` field of the response.
evidence_urlNoThe `evidence_url` field of the response.
verificationNoThe `verification` field of the response.
registered_atNoThe `registered_at` field of the response.
signature_validNoThe `signature_valid` field of the response.
downgrade_reasonNoThe `downgrade_reason` field of the response.
service_versionsNoThe `service_versions` field of the response.
statement_statusNoThe `statement_status` field of the response.
key_fingerprint_sha256NoThe `key_fingerprint_sha256` field of the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed26 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / availability
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `availability` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / checked_at
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `checked_at` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / claim_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `claim_id` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / claims
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `claims` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / count
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `count` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Human-readable explanation of the verdict.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / downgrade_reason
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `downgrade_reason` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / error
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The machine-readable error code, when the operation failed.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidence_url
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `evidence_url` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / key_fingerprint_sha256
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `key_fingerprint_sha256` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / methodology
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `methodology` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `name` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / provider_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `provider_id` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / providers
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `providers` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Why the verdict was reached.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / registered_at
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `registered_at` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / service
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `service` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / service_versions
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `service_versions` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / signature_valid
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `signature_valid` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / statement
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `statement` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / statement_status
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `statement_status` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"The status of the operation."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / valid
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Whether the artifact verified.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / verification
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `verification` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `version` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "detail",
      +  "valid"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, destructive write, and the description adds nothing about what a registration mutates, whether it overwrites an existing provider, or that a signed statement may be required. The only genuine added context is the '$1 USDC' cost, which is useful but thin for a destructive mutation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short, but the front-loading is wasted on a service brand name and the routing clause is grammatically tangled ('for bio trust provider, not bio risk'). The response-shape sentence duplicates the output schema and earns no place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an 8-parameter, zero-required, destructive write with a signed-statement parameter, the description omits which parameters matter, what the registration actually commits to, and any idempotency or failure behavior. Since an output schema exists, spending the description on return fields leaves the mutation semantics completely uncovered.

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 baseline of 3 applies, but the schema text is boilerplate ('The name this operation operates on...'), so the description had room to add meaning and does not. The only object shape mentioned ('25 fields including availability, checked_at') refers to the response, not to any input parameter.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The first clause is a service label ('BioTrust Service 13 — the Biosecurity Benchmark & Trust Registry'), not a statement of what the tool does. It never says that a provider is being registered, what a 'bio trust provider' is, or what the registration produces — the only differentiator from siblings is the negative routing hint toward `assess_bio_risk`.

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?

It does name an alternative and a selection rule: 'use it rather than `assess_bio_risk` for bio trust provider, not bio risk'. That is real routing guidance, but it is the only guidance — no when-not conditions, no prerequisites, no mention of what to do if the provider already exists.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.