Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

widespread

by io.github.TerexitariusStomp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

wide_identity_challenge

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the canonical bind statement + per-platform instructions to link a DID to a platform handle (github/gitlab/forgejo/codeberg/bluesky/mastodon/nostr/x/hackernews/evm/solana/near/…). Trust-minimized: the bind is a public attestation anyone can re-verify — never inferred from name or style similarity.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "did": "<did>",
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "wide_identity_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
didYes
handleYes
platformYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is explaining the semantics: the result is a public attestation anyone can re-verify and identity is never inferred from name or style similarity. That is genuine behavioral context an agent would not get from the annotations. Missing detail on auth requirements or whether the challenge expires keeps it at 4.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the output shape, followed by the trust rationale. No filler, though the parenthetical platform list is long and slightly crowds the second clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value; it does so only at a high level ('canonical bind statement + per-platform instructions'). For a 3-required-param tool with no schema descriptions, more detail on the shape of those instructions and on challenge validity would be expected.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does necessary work: it enumerates accepted platforms (github/gitlab/forgejo/codeberg/bluesky/mastodon/nostr/x/hackernews/evm/solana/near/…), which substitutes for the missing enum. It does not clarify expected DID format (did:key vs did:pkh) or handle normalization, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the canonical bind statement + per-platform instructions to link a DID to a platform handle.' It is clearly the challenge/instructions step rather than the binding itself, so an agent can infer a boundary with wide_identity_bind. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, keeping it from a 5.

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 the call precedes a bind by supplying the statement to sign, but it never says 'call this before wide_identity_bind' or otherwise states when to prefer this tool over the resolve/list siblings. The trust-minimized note gives context but is not usage guidance.

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

All widespread 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