Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MINT Protocol — Universal Work Attestation

by io.github.FoundryNet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mint Verify

mint_verify

Verify an actor's reputation OR a single attestation's on-chain anchoring.

PAID: $0.005 USDC per query. Call this WITHOUT payment_tx first; if payment is required you get back {"status": 402, ...} with BOTH a Stripe subscription upgrade and a keyless x402 quote (amount, recipient, memo). Pay the USDC with that memo, then call again with the SAME arguments plus payment_tx=. (Attestation — mint_attest — is free.)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mint_idNothe actor's MINT id ("MINT-xxxxxx").
actor_nameNothe actor's registered name, e.g. "ResearchBot-7".
actor_typeNooptional disambiguator when resolving by name.
payment_txNoSolana signature of the $0.005 USDC payment (second call).
attestation_hashNothe sha256 attestation handle from mint_attest.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / attestation_hash / description
      Previous value: -"the sha256 attestation handle returned by mint_attest;\nverifies that specific attestation's anchoring + merkle proof."New value: +"the sha256 attestation handle from mint_attest."
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_tx
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Solana signature of the $0.005 USDC payment (second call)."
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / attestation_hash
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "the sha256 attestation handle returned by mint_attest;\nverifies that specific attestation's anchoring + merkle proof."
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds completely. It details the exact pricing ($0.005 USDC), the asynchronous nature of the payment process, and the specific error response (402 status) that triggers the next step of the interaction.

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 highly dense but extremely efficient. Despite the complex, multi-step workflow it describes, every sentence serves a functional purpose, making it appropriately structured for such a nuanced tool.

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 tool's multi-state (free vs. paid) and complex workflow, the definition is maximally complete. An agent has all the necessary information to handle different payment scenarios and correctly call the tool twice if needed.

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?

While the schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning by explaining the transactional nature of the payment_tx parameter. It clarifies that this parameter is used exclusively in the second, paid call, providing essential context for its invocation.

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 tool clearly defines its purpose as verifying either 'an actor's reputation OR a single attestation's on-chain anchoring.' This specific functionality allows an agent to quickly understand the tool's scope relative to other mint functions.

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?

The usage guidelines are highly explicit, detailing a mandatory multi-step payment workflow: 1) call without payment_tx to check cost, 2) receive a 402 quote, 3) pay the memo, and 4) call again with payment_tx. It also provides an essential exception regarding the free nature of the mint_attest tool.

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

All MINT Protocol — Universal Work Attestation toolsInspect
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