Skip to main content
Glama

MolTrust MCP Server

by io.github.MoltyCel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mt_travel_issue_vc

Issue a TravelAgentCredential (W3C Verifiable Credential) for a booking agent.

Creates a cryptographically signed credential that authorizes an AI agent
to book travel on behalf of a principal (company/human), with enforced
segment permissions and spend limits.

Args:
    agent_did: DID of the travel agent (e.g. "did:base:0x...")
    principal_did: DID of the authorizing entity (e.g. "did:base:acme-corp")
    segments: Comma-separated allowed segments (e.g. "hotel,flight,car_rental")
    spend_limit: Maximum spend amount per booking
    currency: Currency code (e.g. "USDC")
    traveler_name: Name of the authorized traveler (optional)
    validity_days: Number of days the credential is valid (default 30)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
currencyYes
segmentsYes
agent_didYes
spend_limitYes
principal_didYes
traveler_nameNo
validity_daysNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a cryptographically signed credential with enforced segment permissions and spend limits, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the principal must be authenticated), side effects like persistence or costs, or failure modes. The description is not contradictory but lacks depth beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a two-sentence summary followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and each parameter explanation is concise and informative. While it is longer than the bare minimum, the length is justified because it compensates for the sparse schema. There is minimal redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all 7 parameters with clear explanations and defaults. However, it omits important context such as authentication requirements, whether the caller must be the principal, or any side effects like credential storage. For a credential-issuing tool, this is a notable gap, but the core functionality is adequately explained.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter names and types (0% description coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples and defaults: agent_did is 'DID of the travel agent (e.g. "did:base:0x...")', spend_limit is 'Maximum spend amount per booking', validity_days has a default of 30, etc. This adds essential meaning that the schema lacks, making parameter usage clear.

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 description clearly states it 'Issue a TravelAgentCredential (W3C Verifiable Credential)' – a specific verb and resource. It further explains the purpose: authorizing an AI agent to book travel with enforced permissions and spend limits. This distinguishes it from sibling verify tools like mt_travel_verify and other issue tools like mt_shopping_issue_vc.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (issue a credential for a booking agent) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools like mt_travel_verify or mt_travel_info, leaving the agent to infer context. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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 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