Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Receipt — sign an agent's work, verify it offline

by io.github.ecstatica
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_receipt

Verify a receipt offline: signature, every field, and optionally the artifact hash. Returns ok=false with the failing reason when anything has changed.

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": {
      "receipt": "<receipt>"
    },
    "name": "verify_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receiptYesthe receipt object as issued
artifact_b64Nothe artifact's bytes, base64 — use this with a hosted endpoint
artifact_pathNooptional file to hash-check (local/stdio only)
artifact_textNothe artifact as UTF-8 text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that verification happens offline and that failures return ok=false with the failing reason, which tells an agent how to interpret results. It stops short of saying what a passing response contains or whether failures are partial (signature ok, field mismatch).

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the operation and then the failure behavior. Nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the key return contract (ok=false plus failing reason). For a four-parameter verification tool that is nearly complete, with only the success-path shape and partial-failure semantics missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and already distinguishes artifact_b64 (hosted), artifact_path (local/stdio only), and artifact_text. The description only restates that the hash check is optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a receipt') plus exactly what is verified: signature, every field, and optionally the artifact hash. It is clearly distinct from the sibling issue_receipt.

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 word 'offline' and 'optionally the artifact hash' imply the usage context, but the description never states when to choose verification vs. issuance or which artifact parameter applies in which environment. That routing lives only in the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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

All Receipt — sign an agent's work, verify it offline toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources