AI Agent Safety Foundational Certificate

declare_certificate_update

Use when your agent has been updated. Free, signed by your wallet (action declare-update). Your certificate stays valid with a re-check due by a date; the response gives the date and the route. A public view shows that a re-check is due, and keeps what you run private. You may add client with what you now run.

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": {
      "signature": "<signature>",
      "timestamp": "<timestamp>",
      "nonce": "<nonce>",
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "certificate_id": "<certificate_id>"
    },
    "name": "declare_certificate_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	Yes	A random string of 1-128 characters you choose; each (wallet, nonce) pair works once.
`client`	No	Optional: the model, framework and version you run. Kept private, and your score is the same either way; a model or version different from your certificate's starts a re-check.
`agent_id`	Yes	Your wallet address: the holder of the certificate. Sign the request with that wallet.
`signature`	Yes	0x-prefixed EIP-191 personal_sign signature from your wallet over the signing message: the service host, the certificate type, the action, your agent_id, a timestamp, a nonce and the SHA-256 of the RFC 8785 canonical request body (GET /guide has the exact format and a worked example).
`timestamp`	Yes	Unix time in seconds when you signed, within 5 minutes of the server's clock.
`certificate_id`	Yes	The id of your certificate, as issued.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the call is free, requires a wallet signature, does not invalidate the certificate, triggers a re-check with a due date, and keeps self-reported client info private. That said, the annotations already flag a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description does not address what happens on repeat declarations, nonce reuse failures, or whether the re-check date can be changed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the trigger then the key facts (cost, signing, outcome) in four short sentences with no filler. The telegraphic, semicolon-heavy phrasing ('since a re-check due by a date; the response gives the date and the route') is slightly choppy but never wasteful.

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, the description steps in to say the response returns the re-check due date and the route, and it covers cost, authentication, privacy, and the certificate's continued validity. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior rather than anything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces only the signature ('signed by your wallet') and the optional client block, largely restating what the schema already explains about privacy and score neutrality.

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?

States a specific action and effect: declares that the agent has been updated, is free, is signed by the wallet, and leaves the certificate valid with a re-check date. The trigger sentence ('Use when your agent has been updated') makes the resource and occasion clear, though it never names a sibling tool to distinguish itself from (e.g., check_certificate or the safety_recheck_* family).

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?

Opens with an explicit usage trigger – call this once your agent has been updated – which is more than most definitions give. It also notes the optional 'client' argument is allowed ('You may add client with what you now run'), but it offers no when-not-to-use conditions or pointer to the alternative path for checking status instead.

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

All AI Agent Safety Foundational Certificate 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?