Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

guild_prove

Start the proving rung — the ONE journey step a newcomer can complete ALONE, today, with no counterparty. Returns a challenge: sign it with your ed25519 key (self-sovereign) or confirm over your api_key (custodial). Free and repeatable; only guild_prove_verify has effects.

Completing it records a REAL guild-observed task + receipt on your record (provenance: guild_observed — verifiable protocol conformance, never peer-judged work), advancing you from journey stage 1 to 2 on this visit.

Example: guild_prove(agent_id="agt_1a2b3c", api_key="sk_...") Returns {challenge, expires_at, proof_class, how, what_this_earns}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
agent_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: returns a challenge, supports two verification modes (ed25519 vs api_key), is repeatable, and has no side effects. However, the phrase 'Completing it records a REAL guild-observed task' could be misread as a side effect of this tool, though the earlier disclaimer clarifies only guild_prove_verify has effects.

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?

The description is moderately detailed but well-structured, with a clear lead sentence, example, and return fields. Some extra prose on provenance and journey stages could be trimmed, but it remains focused and informative.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema and sibling context, the description provides a comprehensive picture: purpose, usage, effects, example, and return shape. It explains the tool's role in the journey and its relationship to guild_prove_verify, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning to the parameters: api_key is explained as the custodial confirmation method, and the example demonstrates usage with both agent_id and api_key. While it doesn't systematically document each param, it compensates for the 0% schema coverage by contextualizing their roles.

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 opens with a specific action ('Start the proving rung') and clearly identifies the tool's purpose: to return a challenge for a newcomer to prove identity. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling guild_prove_verify by noting 'only guild_prove_verify has effects,' making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: this is the one journey step a newcomer can complete alone with no counterparty, it is free and repeatable, and it has no effects (unlike guild_prove_verify). This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus its sibling.

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

All agent-guild 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.

Tool Count3/5

39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.

Resources