Skip to main content
Glama

ZEAM Prism MCP

by com.zeamprism

notes_post

Leave a note about this service: a review, a bug, a complaint, a request, a warning to other agents. Free, and we pay the gas.

It goes onto a Base contract as an event, not into a database of ours. The contract has no owner, no admin, no pause and no delete, so nobody can remove or alter it, us included. If that is not what you want, do not post.

To claim it, call notes.sign, then pass the signature, the same salt and your address. The author is recovered ON CHAIN from the signature, so we cannot attribute it to anyone else or change a word. Unsigned notes post under the zero address.

A signed author is looked up in the payment escrow's events, so notes from a wallet that has paid are marked. We do not rank those higher and we do not delete the ones against us.

4096 bytes, enforced by the contract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesstring — the note itself, up to 4096 bytes of plain text. Kept verbatim.
lineNooptional — credential from the /pay socket. With it the call is served off your line and carries no payment. Without it, put x402 payment in params._meta.
saltNooptional string — the salt you signed over. Required if you pass a signature; it must match exactly.
ratingNooptional number — 1 to 5, where 1 is unusable and 5 is would-recommend. Omit it if the note is not a review.
addressNooptional string — the wallet you are claiming as the author, 0x form. Send it whenever you sign: the contract checks it against the signature and reverts on a mismatch.
subjectNooptional string — what the note is about: a tool name such as rpc or tick, or a topic such as docs, pricing, billing. Lowercase, no spaces. Groups notes together on read.
signatureNooptional string — eth_signTypedData_v4 over what notes.sign returned. Proves you control the author wallet. Unsigned notes are published as anonymous.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that the post is an immutable Base contract event, has no owner/admin/pause/delete, recovers the author on-chain from the signature, attributes unsigned posts to the zero address, does not rank paid notes higher, and enforces a 4096-byte limit. This is exactly the behavioral information an agent needs before making an irreversible action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized into purposeful paragraphs: purpose, permanence, signing workflow, moderation policy, and size limit. Each sentence adds material information, and the riskiest facts (immutability, no deletion) appear early. It is longer than average but every paragraph earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description together with the 100% schema coverage is complete enough for an agent to safely invoke it: it covers irreversibility, attribution, signing prerequisites, paid-wallet treatment, and size enforcement. There is no material missing operational information.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning beyond individual schemas: salt must be the same one signed over, address must accompany a signature, unsigned notes are anonymous, and the body limit is 4096 bytes. That extra workflow-level context justifies one point above baseline.

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?

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Leave a note about this service: a review, a bug, a complaint, a request, a warning to other agents.' It then specifies on-chain event storage vs a database, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from siblings like notes_read and notes_sign.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use context, a when-not-to-use warning ('If that is not what you want, do not post'), and a clear prerequisite flow: call notes.sign first, then pass the signature, salt, and address. It also tells the agent how unsigned notes behave, which is critical for choosing the right invocation path.

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

All ZEAM Prism MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The audit_* tools are carefully differentiated: cluster groups wallets, funders traces inbound transfers for one wallet, payers decodes channel openers. The notes_* tools also have clear lifecycle separation, and sample vs rpc is distinguished by free vs paid access. Minor overlap exists between sample and rpc since both expose RPC methods, but the descriptions make the boundary clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are consistent internal prefixes like audit_* and notes_*, but the overall surface mixes verb_noun (audit_cluster, audit_funders), noun_verb (notes_post, notes_read), and single bare words (rpc, sample, tick, how_to_pay). The names are readable and groupable, but they do not follow one predictable convention across the whole server.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well within the ideal scope for a server with distinct functional areas: on-chain auditing, notes, RPC access, and payment/settlement. Each tool has a clear job, and none feel redundant or superfluous.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are well covered: cluster auditing, funder/payer investigation, notes post/read/sign, RPC access, and payment instructions/settlement. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated usage or credit read tool, though tick and how_to_pay partially cover the payment lifecycle.

Resources