Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.forcedreamai

Verify a ForceDream proof

forcedream_verify_proof
Read-only

Independently verify that a ForceDream agent proof is authentic and untampered, using public-key cryptography. Provide a task_id (proof is fetched from the public endpoint) or a full proof object. Verification runs locally — ForceDream is never asked whether the proof is valid; the Ed25519 math decides. No account or key needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofNoOptional: a full proof object to verify directly (skips the fetch).
task_idNoThe ForceDream task ID whose proof to verify (e.g. wtask_...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when verified is false, e.g. a fetch failure.
key_idNo
messageNo
task_idNo
verifiedYes
algorithmNo
trustlessNo
fields_signedNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: verification runs locally, uses Ed25519 math, does not require account or key, and never asks ForceDream. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words, purpose stated upfront.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given output schema exists and all key aspects are covered, the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand the 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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds that task_id fetches from a public endpoint and proof skips the fetch, adding meaning.

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 specifies the tool verifies a ForceDream proof using public-key cryptography, clearly distinguishing it from siblings which perform other actions.

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 explains two modes (task_id or proof object) and notes verification is local, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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

All mcp-server 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (fraud vs extract vs generate vs sentiment vs lead scoring vs quote vs proof verification). However, there is notable overlap among the search_* discovery tools: forcedream_search_agents, forcedream_search_reliability, and forcedream_search_costs all surface overlapping agent metadata (success_rate appears in both search_agents and search_reliability), which could cause misselection. Additionally, forcedream_extract_data vs forcedream_extract_entities vs forcedream_extract_action_items overlap somewhat in the extraction domain despite distinct outputs (JSON fields vs raw entities vs action items).

Naming Consistency4/5

The forcedream_ prefix is used consistently throughout, and most tools follow a forcedream_<verb>_<object> pattern (extract_data, generate_code, score_lead, security_scan). However, there is inconsistency in verb style: check vs extract vs generate vs invoke vs search vs verify vs summarize are all different verb types, and the objects don't follow a uniform noun convention (some are actions like invole_agent, others resources like market_quote). The naming is readable and discoverable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, this is slightly above the ideal range but justifiable given the broad multi-service scope (fraud, extraction, generation, discovery, verification). Each tool maps to a reasonably distinct service capability, and none feel like padding. The count borders on heavy but earns its place given the diverse domain coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for a multi-purpose AI/ML service platform, covering fraud detection, data extraction, code generation, sentiment analysis, embeddings, lead scoring, security scanning, summarization, market quotes, agent discovery, and proof verification. Missing are update/delete operations, but this appears to be a stateless service rather than a CRUD resource store. The discovery tools (search_* variants) and meta capabilities (verify_proof) round out the lifecycle well, though there's no clear cleanup or batch-processing tool.

Resources