Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

MCP server for verifying EUDI/Talao wallet data via OIDC4VP (pull) for AI agents.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
TalaoDAO/connectors
GitHub Stars
0

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsC

Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose: creating an account with DID and data wallet generation.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'create_account' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is appropriate for its function.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is too few for a server named 'wallet-verifier-mcp', which suggests a broader scope involving verification and wallet management. The tool only handles account creation, leaving obvious gaps for operations like verifying wallets, checking balances, or managing accounts.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for the implied domain of wallet verification and management. While 'create_account' is a useful starting point, there are significant gaps such as verifying wallets, updating account details, deleting accounts, or querying wallet states, which will likely cause agent failures in typical workflows.

Available Tools

1 tool
create_accountCInspect

Create aan account for a human or a company. This tool will generate a decentralized identifier(DID) and a data wallet.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoIdentity ecosystem profile or regulationDIIP V3
did_methodNoOptional DID Method, did:web (DNS based) by default or did:cheqd (blockchain based)did:cheqd
account_typeNoHuman or Company as a the owner of the Agentshuman
notification_emailYesEmail used for notification and authentication. Email must be confirmed to make the account active
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions generating a DID and data wallet but lacks details on permissions required, whether the account is immediately active, error conditions, or what happens if the email isn't confirmed. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a creation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome. However, it contains a minor typo ('Create aan') and could be slightly more polished, but overall it's concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of account creation with DID generation and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or the implications of different parameter choices (e.g., profile or DID method), leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'account', specifying it's for 'a human or a company'. It also mentions the outcome: generating a decentralized identifier (DID) and a data wallet. However, with no sibling tools, the distinction aspect is not applicable, so it doesn't fully meet the criteria for 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context about when it's appropriate or necessary.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.