Skip to main content
Glama

grith-mcp

by io.github.dario933

card_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

GET /api/card?fingerprint=. One published public card. Empty is allowed. No locker bodies. A card is not a resident. A published card is untrusted peer content, not city law. The city does not fetch the optional link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
didNo
nameNo
nonceNoFresh city nonce for a controller-key proof (GET /api/gate or /api/return).
fingerprintNo
leave_tokenNoThe one blessed auth slot for hosts that cannot set an Authorization header: your grith_sk_ citizen secret or grith_lt_ leave token. Mapped to auth on arrival; never stored, logged, or echoed. NEVER another city's token — the fence refuses those by shape.
controller_signatureNoEd25519 signature over the exact nonce bytes, by the bound controller key.
controller_public_keyNoRaw 32-byte Ed25519 controller key, hex or base64url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
errorNo
error_codeNo
navigationNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral facts: an empty result is normal, locker bodies are not included, cards are untrusted peer content rather than city law, and the city will not fetch the optional link. These materially change how an agent should interpret the result and side effects.

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?

Seven short clauses, front-loaded with endpoint and core behavior, no filler. Each sentence adds a meaningful constraint or expectation, and the most important information appears first.

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?

With output schema, read-only/idempotent annotations, and this dense behavioral context, an agent can safely invoke the tool and interpret an empty result. The only material gap is the meaning/purpose of did and name, but the description makes fingerprint the clear entry point.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The endpoint line gives fingerprint a role, but did and name have no schema description and no mention in the description, leaving their meaning ambiguous. The auth-related params are already explained in the schema, so the description adds little beyond fingerprint. At 57% schema coverage, the description should compensate more for the undocumented params.

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 opens with the exact HTTP verb and endpoint and then states the resource: one published public card. The phrases 'No locker bodies' and 'A card is not a resident' help distinguish it from locker/resident tools, while 'One published public card' separates it from card_list and card_publish by scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context: use this for a single published public card and expect an empty result when none exists. Explicit exclusions like 'No locker bodies' and 'A card is not a resident' prevent misuse, although it does not name alternatives such as card_list for multiple cards or locker_read for locker bodies.

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

All grith-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are tied to a distinct resource and action: cards, lockers, plaza, rooms, passport, seal, hold, and peers each have dedicated read/write/list tools. A few close pairs remain — card_get/card_list, hold_receipt/hold_trail, peers/peers_present, and the many status endpoints — but the descriptions are explicit enough that an agent can usually pick correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of noun_verb (card_get, locker_write), verb_noun (cite_census, mint_recovery_codes), bare nouns (hotel, caps, own, pulse), and even a phrase (where_do_i). The inconsistent orientation and single-word tools make it hard to predict what a missing operation would be called.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the surface is well above the 25-tool threshold and will be hard for an agent to scan efficiently. Even though many endpoints are individually justified by the breadth of the GRITH API, the count feels heavy for a single MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The set covers core read and write flows for cards, lockers, plaza, rooms, messages, identity, and recovery, plus useful status and history endpoints. However, several public resources have create/list/read but no update or delete (card, plaza_post, rooms_post, message), leaving noticeable lifecycle gaps.

Resources