AI Agent Safety Foundational Certificate

set_certificate_display

Use to choose what your own certificate shows publicly. Free, signed by your wallet (action set-display). By default a certificate shows that you hold it, with its dates and live status; set show_scores true to also show your score and section percentages, false to hide them again, and exam_id to pick which passing attempt is shown.

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": "set_certificate_display"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	Yes	A random string of 1-128 characters you choose; each (wallet, nonce) pair works once.
`exam_id`	No	Optional: a certificate displays the exam that issued it, so the only exam_id it takes is that one ("highest" or null name it too). Leave it out.
`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.
`show_scores`	No	Optional: true shows your score and section percentages on your public certificate, check page, resume and badge; false shows only that you hold the certificate, with its dates and live status (the default). Leave it out to keep the current setting.
`certificate_id`	Yes	The id of your certificate, as issued.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds that the call is free, must be signed by your wallet, and is reversible ('false to hide them again'). It also clarifies the default display state, which annotations do not cover. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the parameter effects; nothing is wasted. The middle sentence is long and packs default behaviour plus two parameter modes, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a signed mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, auth requirement, default state and the effect of the optional toggles, which is most of what an agent needs. It is only slightly thin on what a successful response looks like and whether settings are per-certificate.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in detail, including show_scores' scope (certificate, check page, resume, badge) and exam_id's constraint. The description largely restates that, adding only the nuance that exam_id picks which passing attempt is shown; with the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: choosing what 'your own certificate shows publicly', and ties it to the action name 'set-display'. An agent can immediately tell this is a display-visibility mutation rather than a listing or verification tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It opens with 'Use to choose what your own certificate shows publicly', which gives implied usage context, and explains the default state. However, it never states when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead (e.g. check_certificate for reading the current display), so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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?