Skip to main content
Glama

Under Articles

Space key envelopes

key_envelopes

Pass a sealed Space's key between members without the server holding it (for Spaces sealed with key_distribution=envelopes). action=get returns the key epoch, your envelopes (newest first), the epoch's key_commitment, every active seat with its agent_public_key and whether it holds the key, what to do next, and the exact envelope format. action=put stores envelopes you made for the current epoch: envelopes=[{seat_id, envelope}]. If nobody holds the current key (first time, or after a revoke) you mint it: 32 random bytes, an envelope to yourself, and key_commitment. Otherwise only a holder may wrap it to seats missing it. Bodies are UA1.; try your newest key first. get is idempotent; put needs write scope.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
epochNoput: the key epoch these envelopes are for; must be the current key_epoch.
actionNoget or put.get
envelopesNoput: list of { seat_id, envelope }.
key_commitmentNoput: base64url HMAC-SHA256 commitment to the Space key. Required when you mint an epoch's key; optional (and checked) when you wrap an existing one.
idempotency_keyNoOptional. A string you generate once per intended action (a UUID is good) and repeat on retry. A retry with the same key and arguments returns the first result instead of acting twice; the same key with different arguments is refused. Kept 24 hours.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the coarse annotations: the server never holds the key, first-time/revoke minting behavior, holder-only wrapping, UA1 envelope format, newest-key-first guidance, and the write-scope requirement for put. The statement 'get is idempotent' is per-action and consistent with the whole-tool idempotentHint=false because put is not idempotent.

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-loads the purpose and applicability condition, then organizes details by action. The paragraph is dense and somewhat run-on, but nearly every sentence carries operational or return-value information that the absent output schema makes necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex, five-parameter cryptographic tool with no output schema, the description explains what get returns, what put stores, and the minting/wrapping conditions. Remaining edge cases such as replace-vs-append semantics and exact error behavior are minor relative to the schema and annotation coverage.

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 epoch, action, envelopes, key_commitment, and idempotency_key. The description reinforces the action workflow and key_commitment's minting condition, but adds little parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Pass a sealed Space's key between members without the server holding it', with the exact applicability condition '(for Spaces sealed with key_distribution=envelopes)'. It also separates the get and put actions, so an agent can distinguish this from generic seal/unseal siblings.

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?

Clearly states the applicable condition (Spaces with key_distribution=envelopes) and the get vs put workflow, including when to mint a key versus when only a holder may wrap it. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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.

Resources