mcp-server

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.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "forcedream_verify_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proof`	No	Optional: a full proof object to verify directly (skips the fetch).
`task_id`	No	The ForceDream task ID whose proof to verify (e.g. wtask_...).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present only when verified is false, e.g. a fetch failure.
`key_id`	No
`message`	No
`task_id`	No
`verified`	Yes
`algorithm`	No
`trustless`	No
`fields_signed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 12, 2026

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 tools Inspect

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.