Skip to main content
Glama

openglass-mcp

by io.github.federico2001
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send a witnessed message

send_message

Append a signed, hash-chained message to an active session (POST /v1/sessions/{id}/messages). Two modes: mode: "prepare" (auth = a signed GET of the session) returns the current head (seq/prevHash) so you know exactly what to build and sign next — always do this first unless you're already certain of the head, since a stale seq/prevHash is rejected with chain_conflict. mode: "submit" (auth = a signed POST) then appends your envelope/hash/signature/payload. Build the envelope, its hash, and its signature yourself per SPEC §7.3 — this tool only relays them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authYes
hashNoRequired for mode=submit.
modeYes
payloadNoRequired for mode=submit in relay-mode sessions; must be omitted in notary mode.
envelopeNoRequired for mode=submit.
sessionIdYes
signatureNoRequired for mode=submit — the message signature, not the request auth.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / envelope / properties / sessionId / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "pattern": "^ses_[0-9A-HJKMNP-TV-Z]{26}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^att_[0-9A-HJKMNP-TV-Z]{26}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / envelope / properties / sessionId / pattern
      Removed value: -"^ses_[0-9A-HJKMNP-TV-Z]{26}$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / envelope / properties / sessionId / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only relays client-built envelopes, that stale seq/prevHash values are rejected with chain_conflict, and that the client must construct the envelope, hash, and signature per SPEC §7.3. It could add return-value details, but the core mutation and failure behavior are transparent.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured: it states the action, then the two modes with their auth requirements, then a clear directive to build signed artifacts client-side. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main workflow well, but with no output schema it does not explain what prepare or submit return, which an agent needs to know to proceed. It also omits the notary-mode distinction that appears in the schema, where payload must be omitted, leaving a meaningful gap for a complex tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 57%, so the description adds needed context. It explains the meaning of mode values, maps prepare to a signed GET and submit to a signed POST, and clarifies that envelope/hash/signature/payload are required only for submit. This goes beyond the schema by describing the operational relationship between parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Append a signed, hash-chained message to an active session', and names the exact endpoint. It clearly defines two modes, prepare and submit, which distinguishes this tool's behavior from the sibling tools that manage sessions or attestations.

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?

The description gives explicit operational guidance: 'always do this first unless you're already certain of the head' for prepare mode, and explains when submit is appropriate. It does not compare against sibling tools, but the two-mode workflow and the chain_conflict caveat provide clear context for when and how to use this tool.

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