MolTrust MCP Server

moltrust_credential

Issue or verify a W3C Verifiable Credential.

Args:
    action: Either "issue" or "verify"
    subject_did: DID of the credential subject (required for "issue")
    credential_type: Type of credential (default: "AgentTrustCredential", only for "issue")
    credential: JSON string of the credential to verify (required for "verify")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`action`	Yes
`credential`	No
`subject_did`	No
`credential_type`	No	AgentTrustCredential

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool either issues or verifies a credential and that parameter requirements depend on the action. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the scope/trust assumptions of verification, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a compact, scannable Args list. Every line conveys necessary information: action, conditional requirements, defaults, and JSON format. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The parameter documentation is strong and the output schema covers return values, but the description is incomplete for tool selection given the many overlapping sibling tools. It lacks any guidance on how this credential tool relates to moltguard_credential_issue/verify, moltrust_verify, or the various domain-specific verify tools. This makes contextual routing ambiguous.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter: 'action' as issue/verify, 'subject_did' as the subject DID required for issue, 'credential_type' as defaulting to AgentTrustCredential and only for issue, and 'credential' as a JSON string required for verify. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Issue or verify a W3C Verifiable Credential.' It accurately conveys the dual-action nature. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like moltguard_credential_issue, moltguard_credential_verify, or moltrust_verify, so it misses full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that 'action' can be 'issue' or 'verify' and notes conditional parameter requirements, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this unified tool over the several similarly named sibling issue/verify tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or routing hints, which is a significant gap given the large sibling set.

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

All MolTrust MCP Server tools Inspect

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.