provenance
Server Details
Stamp any data to the Markovian chain for a verifiable provenance receipt. Proves timing, not truth.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: stamp creates a provenance record, trace walks the lineage, and verify independently checks a stamp. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent 'markovian_verb' pattern (stamp, trace, verify), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools cover the core operations for a provenance system. While minimal, it's appropriate for the scope; a few more tools (e.g., listing stamps) could be added but aren't necessary.
The tools cover the main lifecycle: create (stamp), read/analyze (trace), and verify. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to list or search stamps, but the core use cases are addressed.
Available Tools
3 toolsmarkovian_stampMarkovian Provenance StampAInspect
Commit any data (an AI output, a decision, a record) to the Markovian chain and get back a verifiable, tamper-evident provenance stamp (canonical markovian-provenance/v1). It proves the data existed and was committed at this time; it does NOT assert the data is correct (provenance, not truth). No wallet, account, or funding is required, the first stamp just works, and only the SHA-256 hash of your data is sent to the public API, the raw data is never stored. The returned merkle_root is the handle: save it, then call markovian_verify(merkle_root) to prove integrity later, or pass prior stamps in derived_from to build a lineage you can walk with markovian_trace. Typical use: stamp an agent output the moment it is produced, so anyone can later confirm it was not altered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Exact bytes/string to stamp. Hashed server-side; raw data is not stored. | |
| label | No | Optional human label for the stamp. | |
| wallet | No | Optional. Omit and the protocol mints an ephemeral committer for you. Provide one to attribute the stamp or to burn from your own MKV balance. | |
| derived_from | No | Optional lineage. A list of prior stamps this output was derived from, each {merkle_root, data_hash}. Bound inside the committed bytes so the link is tamper-evident; the payload is published so markovian_trace can walk it. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| schema | Yes | |
| verify | Yes | |
| wallet | Yes | |
| data_hash | Yes | |
| stamped_at | Yes | |
| attestation | Yes | |
| merkle_root | Yes | |
| block_height | No | Markovian chain height where the commitment was recorded (the Markovian chain block, not a Bitcoin block). |
| zk_commitment | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description reveals critical behaviors: data is hashed server-side, raw data is not stored, first stamp is always free, and MKV burn only occurs when a wallet is provided and holds MKV. No contradictions with annotations.
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 three well-structured sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding important limitations and cost details. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, cost, privacy, and lineage. It is complete for a stamp creation tool with well-documented parameters.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds extra semantics for 'data' (hashing and storage disclaimer) and 'derived_from' (tamper-evident linkage and mention of markovian_trace). Wallet parameter also benefits from additional context about ephemeral committers.
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 ('Commit a piece of data to the Markovian chain and return a verifiable provenance stamp') and identifies the resource and version. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (markovian_trace, markovian_verify) by focusing on creation and commitment.
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?
Provides explicit context on when to use ('proves data existed and was committed at this time') and what it does not do ('Does NOT assert the data is correct'). Includes cost behavior and wallet requirements but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
markovian_traceMarkovian TraceARead-onlyInspect
Walk and verify a stamp's full provenance lineage by merkle_root. Use this when a stamp was created with derived_from links, to map what an output was built from. Returns a MAP of the graph (not a yes/no verdict): each node carries hash_binds and anchored, each edge carries edge_verified, and valid is true only if every node and edge checks out. A node whose payload was never published is an unresolved frontier (resolved:false). Read-only. Provenance, not truth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merkle_root | Yes | root of the stamp to trace. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses beyond annotations: it explains the return structure (MAP of the graph), node and edge fields, and the concept of unresolved frontiers. It also clarifies that the tool provides provenance, not truth, which is critical behavioral context. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint annotations.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential output details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a complete understanding of the tool's functionality, return format, and key semantics (e.g., valid, resolved). It fully meets the needs for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning by phrasing 'by merkle_root' but does not introduce new details 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 walks a stamp's provenance lineage by merkle_root and verifies it. It specifies the verb ('walk', 'verify'), resource ('stamp's provenance lineage'), and input. The name and title align, and it is distinguishable from siblings (markovian_stamp, markovian_verify).
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 for tracing and verifying provenance lineage. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context from sibling tool names provides differentiation. The description lacks explicit exclusion but is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
markovian_verifyMarkovian VerifyARead-onlyInspect
Independently verify a Markovian stamp by its merkle_root against the public verifier, with no key or account. Use this to confirm a stamped record existed at its claimed time and has not been altered since. Returns the verifier payload (type:external_stamp, verified:true when the commitment matches; an unknown or edited merkle_root returns verified:false). Read-only: it calls the public verify endpoint, so anyone can run it, including a party who does not trust the stamper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merkle_root | Yes | merkle_root to verify. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific return structure (type:external_stamp, verified:bool) and explains that unknown/edited roots return false, covering behavior beyond annotations.
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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and result. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simple parameter set, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose and behavior. The return payload is described, making it complete for a verification tool.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the parameter. The description restates the parameter usage without adding significant new semantic detail, so 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 verifies a Markovian stamp using a merkle_root and returns a verifier payload with a verified boolean. It distinguishes from the sibling markovian_stamp, which presumably creates stamps.
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 for independent verification but lacks explicit statements about when to use versus alternatives. The sibling tool name provides some context, but no direct exclusions or when-not scenarios are given.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!