Skip to main content
Glama

Verify a signed measurement card (free)

verify_card
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a signed gspc.measurement-card under the published rule (https://councilof.ai/signed/HOW-TO-VERIFY.md): recompute the id from the canonical body bytes, then check the Ed25519 signature under the PINNED key published at did:web:csoai.org#card-attestation-1. A card that carries its own key proves only that the file is self-consistent — anyone can alter a body and sign it with a key they just generated — so a signer other than the published key is reported INVALID. Three verdicts, never two: VALID, INVALID (with the reason), or UNCHECKABLE when the check could not be completed — 'could not check' is a different claim from 'forged'. Accepts the card as a JSON object, a JSON string, or a councilof.ai / csoai.org URL. Never a certification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardYesThe signed card: an object, a JSON string, or a councilof.ai / csoai.org URL to one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
noteNo
ruleNo
stateYesVALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE
checksNo
familyNo
reasonNo
reasonsNo
pinned_keyNo
not_a_certificationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "checks": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "properties": {
      +          "advisory": {
      +            "description": "true = reported but never decides the verdict (the live did.json cross-check)",
      +            "type": "boolean"
      +          },
      +          "check": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "code": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "detail": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "ok": {
      +            "description": "true = passed, false = failed, null = not applicable or not run (detail says UNCHECKED)",
      +            "type": [
      +              "boolean",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "family": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "id": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "not_a_certification": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "pinned_key": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "reason": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "reasons": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "rule": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "state": {
      +      "description": "VALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "state"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "properties": {
      -    "checks": {
      -      "items": {
      -        "properties": {
      -          "advisory": {
      -            "description": "true = reported but never decides the verdict (the live did.json cross-check)",
      -            "type": "boolean"
      -          },
      -          "check": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "code": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "detail": {
      -            "type": "string"
      -          },
      -          "ok": {
      -            "description": "true = passed, false = failed, null = not applicable or not run (detail says UNCHECKED)",
      -            "type": [
      -              "boolean",
      -              "null"
      -            ]
      -          }
      -        },
      -        "type": "object"
      -      },
      -      "type": "array"
      -    },
      -    "family": {
      -      "type": [
      -        "string",
      -        "null"
      -      ]
      -    },
      -    "id": {
      -      "type": [
      -        "string",
      -        "null"
      -      ]
      -    },
      -    "not_a_certification": {
      -      "type": "boolean"
      -    },
      -    "note": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "pinned_key": {
      -      "type": [
      -        "string",
      -        "null"
      -      ]
      -    },
      -    "reason": {
      -      "type": [
      -        "string",
      -        "null"
      -      ]
      -    },
      -    "reasons": {
      -      "items": {
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "type": "array"
      -    },
      -    "rule": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "state": {
      -      "description": "VALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE",
      -      "type": "string"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "state"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "checks": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "properties": {
      +          "advisory": {
      +            "description": "true = reported but never decides the verdict (the live did.json cross-check)",
      +            "type": "boolean"
      +          },
      +          "check": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "code": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "detail": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "ok": {
      +            "description": "true = passed, false = failed, null = not applicable or not run (detail says UNCHECKED)",
      +            "type": [
      +              "boolean",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "family": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "id": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "not_a_certification": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "pinned_key": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "reason": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "string",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "reasons": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "rule": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "state": {
      +      "description": "VALID, INVALID or UNCHECKABLE",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "state"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the exact verification algorithm, the security reasoning about self-signed keys, and the three-verdict semantics (VALID, INVALID, UNCHECKABLE). This goes beyond what annotations provide and fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 slightly long but well-structured: it starts with the core action, then explains the verification process, the security nuance, and the verdict semantics. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened by moving the URL reference to the end. It is not wasteful, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 complexity of signature verification and the need to handle security pitfalls, the description covers all essential aspects: how the verification works, what makes a card INVALID, what UNCHECKABLE means, and acceptable input types. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. An agent has sufficient information to call this tool 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 single parameter 'card' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as accepting an object, JSON string, or URL. The description adds the negative constraint 'Never a certification,' which clarifies what the tool does not accept, providing extra semantic value beyond the schema. This raises it above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb (verify), a specific resource (signed gspc.measurement-card), and a precise method (recompute id, check Ed25519 signature under pinned key). It distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it is not a certification and by defining three verdicts, which separates it from generic verification tools like verify_inclusion.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool (to verify a signed measurement card) and what it does not do ('Never a certification'). It also clarifies the nuance of UNCHECKABLE vs INVALID, which guides correct interpretation of results. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when to choose this over verify_inclusion, though the focus on measurement cards is implicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources