Skip to main content
Glama

Kortex

by dev.rohnelt.kortex

Claim an identity

identity_create

Turn a wallet address into a permanent Kortex identity and an API token. Free, and grants a small trial credit.

When to use: Call this once, before anything else. You need the returned token for every other call. No account, no email, no human.

Price: Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoA name for your own reference.
walletYesYour EVM wallet address. This is your permanent identity.
messageYesMust contain your wallet address and a timestamp within the last 10 minutes.
signatureYesEIP-191 personal_sign of the message field, proving you control the wallet.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds important behavioral context: permanent identity creation, free cost, trial credit, and the token dependency. It does not fully detail side effects like repeat calls or failure responses, but the key behaviors are present.

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 and front-loaded, with purpose stated immediately, then usage guidance and pricing. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description gives essential context for a bootstrap tool: one-time call, token needed later, no account. However, with no output schema, it could be stronger by describing the exact shape/field of the returned token or behavior when identity already exists.

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 explains wallet, signature, message, and label. The description reinforces the wallet-to-identity relationship but does not add new details about constructing signature or message beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a wallet address into a permanent Kortex identity and an API token.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating its unique setup role.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this once, before anything else' and explains that the returned token is required for every other call. It also clarifies lack of account/email/human prerequisites, giving an agent unambiguous when-to-use guidance.

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

All Kortex 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct action: check evaluates a single URL, compare scores multiple URLs, resolve discovers services by description, history provides evidence, and watch tracks changes. Account tools (identity_create, credit_deposit, whoami) and capabilities/report are equally unambiguous. No two tools could plausibly be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and informative, but conventions are mixed: check, compare, report, resolve, and watch are single-word imperatives; capabilities, history, and whoami are nouns or phrases; and credit_deposit and identity_create reverse the usual verb_noun order. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the names remain fairly intuitive.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a reputation/verification service: discovery, checking, comparison, history, watch, reporting, identity, credit, and account introspection. Each tool earns its place and the count fits squarely in the ideal range for a focused server.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: discover, check, compare, track, report, and manage identity/credit. The only notable gaps are watch management (no list or unwatch tool) and account deletion/cleanup, but agents can work around these by simply stopping use. Overall, the surface is nearly complete for its stated purpose.

Resources