Skip to main content
Glama

~Alter Identity

by com.truealter

Verify a ~handle

alter_verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a ~handle is known to the ~alter identity field. Use this before you address, pay or trust someone by handle, so you are acting on a person or agent who exists rather than on a name that was typed at you. Returns whether the handle is registered, its canonical form, account status, archetype, and the engagement and attunement the field holds for it, as tier labels rather than numeric scores. Listed free at L0; calling it needs a credential, which an agent can mint for itself with register_autonomous_challenge then register_autonomous.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesThe ~handle to check. Accepted with or without its leading tilde and matched case-insensitively, so a handle typed three different ways resolves once. Max 64 characters.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: credential requirement, free L0 listing, autonomous minting path, and tiered labels rather than numeric scores. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The purpose and usage are front-loaded, but the authentication instruction is stated twice in close succession, adding redundancy. It is still compact enough to be usable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return fields, the intended use, and the authentication path. It is somewhat repetitive but complete for 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%, including case-insensitivity, optional tilde, and max length. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Check whether a ~handle is known to the ~alter identity field") and states what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling alter_resolve_handle, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear use case: "Use this before you address, pay or trust someone by handle." There are no exclusions or alternative-tool references, so it does not reach the explicit when-not/alternatives level.

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

All ~Alter Identity toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct purposes: auth status, presence, handle resolution, identity verification, reference data, registration, and onboarding. A few pairs overlap somewhat—alter_resolve_handle vs alter_verify, and alter_login_status vs hello_agent—but the descriptions provide enough distinction to avoid major misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is readable but inconsistent: some tools use an alter_ prefix, while others use bare verbs, noun phrases like golden_thread_status, or greetings like hello_agent. The pattern is mixed rather than chaotic, but there is no unified verb_noun convention across the server.

Tool Count4/5

Sixteen tools is slightly above the ideal well-scoped range and the toolset could be trimmed by merging related reference and registration tools. Still, each tool has a distinct enough role that the count does not feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

Core flows are covered: registration, credential checking, handle resolution, verification, network stats, reference vocabularies, and the Golden Thread program. However, descriptions reference capabilities like query_field and verify_identity that are not exposed as tools, and there is no profile update or identity management surface, leaving notable gaps.

Resources