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 4.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: stamping data, tracing lineage, and verifying stamps. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'markovian_verb' pattern, with clear verbs (stamp, trace, verify) that match their actions.
Three tools is slightly low but well-scoped for the narrow domain of tamper-evident provenance. Each tool earns its place.
The set covers the essential operations: stamp creation, independent verification, and lineage tracing. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
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?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that only the SHA-256 hash is sent (raw data never stored), that no wallet is required (ephemeral committer), and that the merkle_root serves as a handle. It also covers the behavior of derived_from (payload published for tracing). 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is slightly lengthy with some redundancy (e.g., 'it proves the data existed...; it does NOT assert the data is correct'). Still, every sentence adds value.
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 complexity (4 parameters, optional lineage with nested objects), the description thoroughly covers purpose, parameters, behavior, privacy, output, and integration with sibling tools. It includes a typical use case, making it complete for agent invocation.
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?
Although the schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description enriches them with additional context: for 'data' it clarifies server-side hashing; for 'derived_from' it explains tamper-evident binding and traceability; for 'wallet' it explains ephemeral committer vs. attributed stamp. This goes beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Commit any data ... to the Markovian chain and get back a verifiable, tamper-evident provenance stamp'. It distinguishes itself from siblings markovian_trace and markovian_verify by explaining their roles in verification and tracing.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'stamp an agent output the moment it is produced' and clarifies what the tool does not do ('it does NOT assert the data is correct'). It also explains when to use siblings ('call markovian_verify(merkle_root) to prove integrity later') and mentions that no wallet or funding is required.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds detailed behavioral context: the returned map structure (nodes with hash_binds and anchored, edges with edge_verified), the validity condition, and unresolved frontier (resolved:false). No contradiction 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?
Four front-loaded sentences, each providing essential information without fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences elaborate on usage, output structure, and behavior.
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 a single parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, input, output structure (including node/edge details, valid flag, unresolved frontier), and usage context, making it sufficient for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
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?
Only one parameter (merkle_root) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds context by stating it walks by merkle_root, reinforcing the meaning beyond the schema's 'root of the stamp to trace.'
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 and verifies a stamp's provenance lineage by merkle_root, differentiating it from siblings (markovian_stamp and markovian_verify) by focusing on tracing lineage rather than creating or verifying 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 explicitly says 'Use this when a stamp was created with derived_from links, to map what an output was built from,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool and what it does (returns a map graph, not a yes/no verdict).
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description adds return payload structure, verification logic, and access control (anyone can run). No contradiction 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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Comprehensive for a simple tool with one parameter, annotations, and no output schema. Explains return value, verification outcome, and usage context adequately.
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 clear description for merkle_root. Description merely restates the parameter without adding new semantics. Baseline score 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?
Clearly states the tool verifies a Markovian stamp by its merkle_root against the public verifier. Differentiates from siblings (markovian_stamp, markovian_trace) by emphasizing 'independent verification' and 'no key or account'.
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: to confirm a record existed at a claimed time and hasn't been altered. Implicitly excludes stamping (sibling tool) and tracing. Does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context with sibling names suffices.
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!