Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Issue a verified single credential

wever_single-credential-issue

Idempotent

Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base; 10 signed-wallet free calls shared over rolling 30 days. Issue the exact credential authorized by a human at https://weverlabs.com/verified-single/ after existing Wever email sign-in, a current photo and their own single-status attestation. Submit their short-lived issuance_authorization. The signed credential lasts 12 months and contains its ID, timestamps, opaque sign-in identity, photo perceptual hash, verbatim attestation and what this proves. Identity means verified control of the email account. Single status is self-attested, not independently investigated by Wever. POST /api/single-credential-issue. 0.10 USDC on Base via x402, under the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Replay the same authorization for the original result. Check status anonymously with wever_single-credential-check on /mcp-free.

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": {
      "issuance_authorization": "<issuance_authorization>"
    },
    "name": "wever_single-credential-issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issuance_authorization`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, while the description adds substantial context: pricing and the 10-free-call quota, the 12-month credential lifetime, what the credential contains, that single status is self-attested rather than investigated, and replay semantics that match idempotentHint=true. This is meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 pricing/quota information is stated twice almost verbatim ("0.10 USDC per call on Base; 10 signed-wallet free calls..." and later "0.10 USDC on Base via x402, under the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls..."), wasting space. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the paragraph is denser than necessary.

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?

With no output schema and a single parameter, the description supplies enough to call correctly: prerequisites, authorization origin, credential lifetime and contents, and replay behavior. Missing details are minor, such as explicit response shape, but that is largely implied by the credential contents listed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only constrains the string to 43 characters, so the description carries the load by explaining that issuance_authorization is short-lived, comes from the human-authorized URL, and can be replayed for the original result. It could still say more about where the authorization is obtained programmatically or its expiry format.

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 ("Issue the exact credential authorized by a human") and scopes it to the human-authorized single credential flow at a named URL. It also explicitly names the sibling wever_single-credential-check for the read side, so an agent can separate issuance from status checking.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the credential must already be authorized by a human, after email sign-in, current photo, and attestation, and the agent should submit an issuance_authorization. It also routes status checks to the sibling tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-call guidance beyond the human-authorization prerequisite.

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?