Tinplate Edge AI Safety, Security & EU Compliance

tinplate_consent_tokens

Read-onlyIdempotent

Stateless Consent & One-Click Unsubscribe Tokens API: Issue and verify stateless HMAC unsubscribe tokens and RFC 8058 List-Unsubscribe headers. (Endpoint: POST /v1/consent-tokens/issue)

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "scope": "<scope>"
    },
    "name": "tinplate_consent_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	Yes	Parameter 'scope' (e.g. "marketing_weekly")
`secret`	No	Parameter 'secret' (e.g. "unsubscribe-hmac-secret-key-2026")
`subject`	Yes	Parameter 'subject' (e.g. "user_8821")
`ttl_seconds`	No	Numeric parameter 'ttl_seconds' (e.g. 2592000)
`unsubscribe_url_base`	No	Parameter 'unsubscribe_url_base' (e.g. "https://example.com/unsub")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's word 'stateless' usefully reinforces why no server state is written. It does not disclose where the HMAC secret comes from if omitted, what a default TTL would be, or what the issued token/headers look like. Useful added context, but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and then the standards reference. The endpoint path is mildly redundant metadata but not harmful. Nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned (a token string? a full header set?), and it never says. The issue-versus-verify ambiguity and the absence of defaults for optional parameters like ttl_seconds and secret leave meaningful gaps for a five-parameter tool.

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 all five parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the conceptual framing of HMAC signing and does not clarify the role of secret versus ttl_seconds versus unsubscribe_url_base beyond what the schema shows.

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 names a specific verb and resource: issuing stateless HMAC unsubscribe tokens plus RFC 8058 List-Unsubscribe headers. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as tinplate_email_dns or tinplate_pii_redactor. The only blemish is that it claims to 'issue and verify' while the parenthetical endpoint is only POST /v1/consent-tokens/issue, leaving the actual scope slightly ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool. The agent must infer the use case (building one-click unsubscribe links for marketing email) entirely from the title.

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

All Tinplate Edge AI Safety, Security & EU Compliance 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?