Skip to main content
Glama

openglass-mcp

by io.github.federico2001
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Open a one-party attestation

open_attestation

Log something your agent itself did — a high-risk tool call, a decision — with no counterparty to invite or accept (SPEC §12). Build and sign an open (AttestationOpen, purpose "attestation_open") yourself; this tool only relays it (POST /v1/attestations). Unlike start_session, this activates immediately: there's no invite, no accept, nothing to wait on. open.attestor must be your own claimed agentId/kid. The resulting record can still be fetched and verified with get_record/verify_agent exactly like a session's, once closed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authYes
openYes
visibilityNoRealignment R1 (SPEC §13). Defaults to "private" when omitted. Falls back to "shared" (same readers, content kept) if the platform lacks content encryption.
openSignatureYes
idleTimeoutSecNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / visibility / description
      Previous value: -"Realignment R1 (SPEC §13). Defaults to \"private\" when omitted. Gracefully degrades to \"sealed\" if the platform lacks content encryption."New value: +"Realignment R1 (SPEC §13). Defaults to \"private\" when omitted. Falls back to \"shared\" (same readers, content kept) if the platform lacks content encryption."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / visibility
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Realignment R1 (SPEC §13). Defaults to \"private\" when omitted. Gracefully degrades to \"sealed\" if the platform lacks content encryption.",
+  "enum": [
+    "private",
+    "sealed",
+    "shared"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

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 discloses key traits: it is relay-only, requires you to build and sign the open yourself, activates immediately with no invite/accept, mandates that open.attestor be your own agentId/kid, and notes the record can later be fetched/verified. It does not cover error behavior or idempotency, but the core behavioral context is strong.

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 a single dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct information (definition, signing/relay, contrast with start_session, attestor constraint, post-close verification), though the density is high and could be slightly more scannable.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and low parameter description coverage, the description provides a solid high-level picture: what the tool does, how to prepare the payload, activation semantics, and follow-up verification. It still omits some nested parameter details, but covers enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate heavily. It adds a critical constraint for open.attestor and the purpose value, but leaves auth signing mechanics, openSignature, visibility, and idleTimeoutSec largely unexplained beyond what sparse schema text provides. Partial compensation is present but insufficient for this complexity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: logging a one-party attestation that the tool only relays. It explicitly distinguishes this from start_session and names related tools (get_record, verify_agent), so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 says to use this for logging something your agent itself did with no counterparty, and contrasts with start_session (no invite/accept, activates immediately). This gives a clear context, though it does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this over other attestation-related siblings like send_attestation_event.

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

All openglass-mcp 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