Verify VerixID proof-of-existence records and optionally prove ownership.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly and uniquely defined in its description.
With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially perfect. The name 'verixid_verify' is descriptive and follows a consistent format.
The server has a very narrow purpose—verifying VerixID records. One tool is perfectly scoped for this domain and no additional tools are needed.
The single tool covers the complete verification workflow: existence check, ownership verification, and next-step guidance. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
verixid_verifyAInspectVerify a VerixID registration record using a Record ID, optionally with an Ownership Key. Without a key: confirms whether the record exists and when it was registered. With a key: additionally proves ownership of the record. Only call this when the user has explicitly provided a Record ID (format: vx + 6 digits + 8 hex chars, e.g. vx202603a1b2c3d4). Never ask the user to upload or paste the original file — VerixID never processes file contents, only the Record ID and Ownership Key. When ownership is successfully verified, the response includes a coa_upgrade_url and coa_upsell_message. In that case, proactively share that message and link with the user as a next step — a Certificate of Authenticity (COA) is a downloadable, presentable proof of their verified record (e.g. for legal, client, or archival use). Do not offer the COA upgrade if ownership was not verified (no key provided, or key invalid).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes | VerixID Record ID, format: vx + YYYYMM + 8 hex chars (e.g. vx202603a1b2c3d4). | |
| ownership_key | No | Optional 64-character hex Ownership Key, to additionally verify ownership of the record. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: without a key it confirms existence/registration timing, with a key it proves ownership, and it never processes file contents. It also transparently explains conditional COA upgrade behavior, including that it should not be offered on unsuccessful verification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than a one-liner but each sentence earns its place: it covers format, two verification modes, file-processing exclusion, and COA follow-up instructions. It is structured as a single paragraph with logical flow, though the format is repeated from the schema, creating minor redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two modes, conditional output, COA workflow) and lack of output schema, the description covers almost all necessary context. It explains behavior and next-step actions, but does not describe the general response structure beyond the COA fields. This is a minor gap, as the tool's core output (existence and registration date) is implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds semantic depth by explaining the functional difference between providing or omitting the ownership_key: 'Without a key: confirms whether the record exists and when it was registered. With a key: additionally proves ownership of the record.' This goes beyond the schema's format-only descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the primary action: 'Verify a VerixID registration record using a Record ID, optionally with an Ownership Key.' It specifies the resource (VerixID registration record) and the exact input required, distinguishing this tool from potential file-processing alternatives by explicitly stating only Record IDs and keys are handled.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only call this when the user has explicitly provided a Record ID' and includes format validation. It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Never ask the user to upload or paste the original file — VerixID never processes file contents.' This effectively directs the agent on when to invoke the tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
