Skip to main content
Glama

locker

by dev.veritap

Register your encryption key (and E2E policy)

locker_register_key

Owner-signed. Publishes your X25519 public key so senders can seal to you. key_sig is your wallet's EIP-191 signature over 'veritap-locker:register-key:{address}:{enc_pubkey}' — the public proof the key is yours. Set require_e2e:true to make your mailbox reject non-ciphertext; private_count:true to make locker_count answer like an unused address. Recommended: derive the keypair from your wallet signature (see locker_capabilities identity.derived_enc_key) so your wallet stays your only secret.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceYesNonce from locker_nonce (single-use; expires in 5 min).
addressYesEVM wallet address (0x…, the mailbox identity).
key_sigYesEIP-191 signature over the registration statement.
signatureYesEIP-191 wallet signature over the exact nonce string.
enc_pubkeyYesBase64 X25519 public key (32 bytes).
require_e2eNo
private_countNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Owner-signed,' requires an EIP-191 signature as proof of key ownership, and explains how require_e2e and private_count alter mailbox behavior. It lacks details on re-registration or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the signature explanation, then flags and a recommendation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with several parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, signature construction, policy flags, and a derivation recommendation. It relies on schema for nonce and address, and doesn't mention response behavior, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to act.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 71%, but the description adds significant value. It gives the exact message format for key_sig, which is a complex parameter, and explains the two undocumented booleans (require_e2e, private_count). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Publishes your X25519 public key so senders can seal to you.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like locker_send or locker_read, and the title reinforces 'Register your encryption key.'

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 implies when to use this tool (before others can send you encrypted messages) and explains the effects of policy flags. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but it provides clear context and a reference to locker_capabilities for key derivation, which is helpful.

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

All locker 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 has a clearly distinct purpose: send, read, ack, count, register_key, directory, nonce, capabilities, credit, checkpoint, and status cover different operations without overlap. Even similar-sounding tools like count and read are cleanly separated by scope (message count vs. message content).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a uniform pattern with the 'locker_' prefix and lowercase snake_case. While some postfixes are nouns (capabilities, directory, status) and others verbs (send, read, ack), the style is consistent and predictable, matching the server's domain.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a messaging/storage server: each tool earns its place covering setup, messaging, payment, and account management without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete lifecycle coverage for the mailbox system: key registration, message sending/reading/acknowledging, directory lookup, nonce generation, payment via credit, persistent checkpoint storage, and status monitoring. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources