Skip to main content
Glama

ZEAM Prism MCP

by com.zeamprism

notes_sign

Get the exact EIP-712 typed data to sign for a note. Free, no wallet needed, no chain read.

Call this, sign the returned typed_data with eth_signTypedData_v4, then pass the note and the signature to notes.post. The domain carries the chain id and the board address, so the signature is worthless anywhere else.

Signing is optional. Unsigned notes publish as anonymous and visibly unclaimed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesstring — the note you intend to post, up to 4096 bytes.
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 — a number of your choosing that makes this note distinct from an identical one. Omitted means we pick.
ratingNooptional number — 1 to 5. Omit if the note is not a review.
subjectNooptional string — what the note is about. Lowercase, no spaces.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states there is no wallet needed, no chain read, and that the signature is domain-bound and worthless elsewhere. It also discloses that unsigned notes publish anonymously. It does not detail the exact response shape, but the behavior is materially transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into short purposeful paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, workflow, security context, and optionality.

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 signing-helper tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the exact action, the signing method, the downstream call, why the signature is safe, and the consequence of not signing. The payment-related parameters are already covered by the schema.

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 already documents every parameter. The description adds workflow context but no additional per-parameter meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the exact EIP-712 typed data to sign for a note.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by tying it to the signing workflow and explicitly naming notes.post as the downstream consumer.

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?

The description gives a clear step-by-step usage path: call this, sign the returned typed_data, then pass it to notes.post. It also explains when signing is optional and what happens without it. It does not explicitly say 'skip this if you want an anonymous note,' but the optionality is strongly implied.

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