Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Proof Relay

wever_proof-relay

Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base; 10 signed-wallet free calls shared over rolling 30 days. Read the backend 402 body for x402 terms. Prepare a reference envelope and a digest binding the supplied source and destination, ready for the sender’s delivery step. Operating boundary: Supply source, destination and artifact references. Read the prepared envelope and binding digest. The sending agent delivers it through its chosen transport; the human reviews the references and resulting acknowledgment. POST /api/proof-relay. Existing product credentials, signed mandates, and single-use action grants remain required where applicable. This adapter grants no authority and never supplies server credentials. This current operation is a bounded computation on caller-supplied data.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mode": "<mode>",
      "source_agent_id": "<source_agent_id>",
      "destination": "<destination>",
      "proof_references": "<proof_references>"
    },
    "name": "wever_proof-relay"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`destination`	Yes
`source_agent_id`	Yes
`proof_references`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: paid pricing, free-call quota, x402 terms, required credentials and mandates, no authority granted, no server credentials supplied, and the fact that the sending agent performs delivery. These details materially affect invocation and are consistent with the provided 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 text is informative but front-loads pricing before the core purpose and then layers operating-boundary, endpoint, credential, and authority notes. Some of this earns its place, but the ordering and density make the purpose slower to extract than necessary.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the operational boundary, payment context, and authority limitations, which are important for this tool. It remains incomplete for a complex nested input with no output schema, especially around parameter structure and what exactly is returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only broadly mentions source, destination, and artifact references and does not explain mode, destination variants, proof reference kinds, or payload digest semantics.

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 states a specific verb and artifact: it prepares a reference envelope and a digest binding source and destination. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby proof/receipt/relay siblings.

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?

The operating boundary clarifies the caller's role and that delivery happens elsewhere, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?