Tracea — legal identity (Know Your Agent) for AI agents, on-chain. ERC-8004 compatible.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (single action vs. list, agent info vs. verification, revocation check vs. logging). One minor overlap exists between get_agent_info and verify_agent, but the descriptions make verify_agent's broader verification purpose clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, log_, is_, verify_), with clear, predictable naming throughout the set.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a domain focused on agent registry queries, verification, and action logging. Each tool serves a specific purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers read operations for agents/actions, verification, and action logging. Minor gaps exist (no create/update/revoke agent tools, no generic list-all-agents), but these appear intentionally omitted given the server's verification and audit focus.
get_actionAInspectRead a single logged agent action from the Tracea ActionLog contract by its numeric ID. Returns agent, action type, payload and timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action_id | Yes | Numeric action ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies a read operation and the returned fields, but does not mention revert behavior for invalid IDs or other edge cases. The word 'Read' implies non-mutating, but no explicit safety guarantee is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, immediately identifying the operation and outputs. No redundancy or filler; well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It does not address edge cases like non-existent IDs, but the essential information for selection and invocation is present. Given the lack of output schema, listing the return fields provides sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage ('Numeric action ID'). The description adds only the phrase 'by its numeric ID,' which does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a single logged agent action from the Tracea ActionLog contract using a numeric ID. The verb 'Read' and the scope 'single' effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like get_agent_actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'single... by its numeric ID' implies this is the tool to use when a specific action ID is known, contrasting with list-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_agent_actionsAInspectList all on-chain action IDs logged for a given agent on Tracea.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the purpose and implies a read operation through 'List', but doesn't explicitly confirm read-only safety, pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by immediately announcing the action ('List') and the resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough to understand what is returned (a list of action IDs) and what input is needed. It lacks caveats like pagination, but for the tool's simplicity, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameter semantics with a clear description ('Ethereum address of the agent'). The tool description merely restates 'a given agent', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource: 'on-chain action IDs logged for a given agent'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_action (singular action) and log_action (write operation) by focusing on listing all action IDs for an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the context of use ('for a given agent') and the tool's function, making it clear when to choose this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would push it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_agent_infoAInspectGet the raw Tracea registry record for an agent: owner, permission scope, financial cap, active status, timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying 'raw' and listing return fields, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe error handling. The verb 'get' weakly implies safety, but this is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses only necessary words. It is elegant and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool, the description adequately conveys the purpose and return contents. However, it omits handling of missing agents and does not differentiate from sibling tools, leaving some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a description for agent_address ('Ethereum address of the agent'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (raw Tracea registry record), and enumerates specific fields (owner, permission scope, financial cap, active status, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on actions, revocations, or verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the focus on raw registry data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over verify_agent or is_agent_revoked. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_owner_agentsAInspectList all agent addresses registered on Tracea by a given owner address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the owner |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'List all' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, error handling, or behavior for invalid addresses. The core behavior is clear, but additional context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: 'List all agent addresses registered on Tracea by a given owner address.' It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description adequately states what it returns (agent addresses) and the input condition (owner). It could further clarify whether the list includes all statuses (e.g., revoked agents) or the return shape, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a basic lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a full description for the only parameter 'owner_address' (Ethereum address of the owner), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's phrase 'by a given owner address' adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all agent addresses registered on Tracea by a given owner address,' which clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (agent addresses), and the scoping condition (owner address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_info or get_agent_actions, which target different resources or scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when needing agent addresses for a specific owner) but does not explicitly state alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. Sibling tools are available but not referenced. This is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_registration_fileAInspectFetch the ERC-8004 compatible registration file for a Tracea-registered agent, including the KYA legal principal block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output content ('registration file' including KYA block) and implies a read operation via 'Fetch', but does not mention potential errors (e.g., agent not registered), return format, or prerequisites beyond the implicit registration requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that uses concise, specific language without waste. Every phrase earns its place, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key detail about the registration file.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description adequately states what it returns, but it lacks details about output format, error conditions, or whether the address must be currently registered. For a minimal tool it is sufficient, yet some edge behavior is left unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the parameter with a basic description ('Ethereum address of the agent'), and the tool description adds meaningful context by specifying that the agent must be 'Tracea-registered'. This goes beyond the schema's generic address description, clarifying the expected input domain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies a clear resource ('ERC-8004 compatible registration file'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including the KYA legal principal block'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_info or get_agent_actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a Tracea-registered agent' and mentioning the KYA block, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions. There is no alternative tool named, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
is_agent_revokedAInspectCheck whether an agent's mandate has been revoked on Tracea (immediate, scheduled or partial revocation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the mention of revocation types adds useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as return format, error conditions, or whether the tool interacts with external systems beyond what's implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action verb and immediately states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core purpose and types of revocation. It could explicitly state that it returns a boolean (true/false), but the name and verb 'Check' already imply this, so the gap is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the agent_address parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Ethereum address of the agent').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('agent's mandate has been revoked on Tracea'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_agent_info by focusing on revocation status. It also adds nuance with 'immediate, scheduled or partial revocation', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool checks whether a mandate is revoked, which gives context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to siblings like get_agent_info, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
log_actionAInspectLog an agent action on-chain via Tracea (immutable audit trail, court-ready). Requires TRACEA_API_KEY env var. The action is signed by the account's wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Optional human-readable payload (JSON string recommended) | |
| action_type | Yes | Short action type, e.g. 'email_sent', 'payment_initiated' | |
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the acting agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses several behavioral traits: the record is immutable and court-ready, the tool requires a specific env var (TRACEA_API_KEY), and the action is signed by the wallet. These go beyond the raw purpose and inform the agent of security and permanence implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the action with 'Log', and includes essential contextual details (immutability, API key, signing) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers key aspects, it omits the return value (e.g., transaction ID) and potential side effects like gas costs or failure modes. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no information about what to expect after invocation, leaving a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details nor clarify relationships between parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline established by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Log' with the resource 'agent action on-chain via Tracea', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are read/verify operations. This is a precise and unambiguous definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by being the only write/log tool among readonly siblings, making it obvious when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling names themselves clarify this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_agentAInspectVerify an AI agent's on-chain legal identity on Tracea (Base Sepolia). Returns registration status, financial cap, permission scope, revocation status, and KYA legal identity (mandant) when available. Use this BEFORE trusting or delegating work to an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing the return fields (registration status, financial cap, etc.) and the 'when available' qualifier for the mandant, but it does not disclose potential errors, network dependencies, or side effects (though read-only is implied).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences. The first states purpose and output; the second provides usage guidance. No waste, fully front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, and usage context sufficiently. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter 'agent_address' with its format, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource ('AI agent's on-chain legal identity on Tracea (Base Sepolia)') and enumerates the specific verification attributes returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_info' by emphasizing the legal identity verification purpose and the 'BEFORE trusting' use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this BEFORE trusting or delegating work to an agent.' This provides clear context for adoption. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of the full 5 criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
