agent-compute-ledger
Server Details
Compute-is-carbon cost/energy ledger for agent work (Landauer-validated).
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (record work, list, attest, verify, aggregate, describe) with no overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., record_work, verify_chain) or are standalone verbs (attest, footprint). No mixing of conventions.
Seven tools cover the core workflow of a compute ledger (record, list, attest, verify, aggregate, describe) without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle (recording, listing, attesting, verifying, aggregating). A minor gap is the absence of a direct entry retrieval by ID, but list_entries and hash-based verification fill the need.
Available Tools
7 toolsattestBInspect
Issue a content-addressed attestation for a ledger entry (verifiable green-compute / energy claim).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or error handling. The phrase 'issue' implies creation but lacks details on expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, earning a high score for efficiency but not top marks for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on what constitutes a valid attestation or what the output represents, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'entry_id' is not described beyond its type and requirement. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning, leaving the agent to infer format or constraints from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('issue'), the object ('content-addressed attestation for a ledger entry'), and the domain ('verifiable green-compute / energy claim'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_attestation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to issue vs verify). The description lacks contextual cues for appropriate usage or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
describe_agentCInspect
Fleet-standard self-description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides none. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise – a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification; a bit more detail would improve it without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to provide any context about what 'self-description' entails or how it fits into the fleet standard. This is minimally complete but lacks richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds the purpose 'self-description', which is redundant with the name but provides minimal context. No further parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fleet-standard self-description' is vague. It does not specify what exactly is described (the agent itself, its capabilities, or the fleet), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'attest' or 'footprint'. A verb like 'returns' or 'provides' would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool. There is no mention of context, alternatives, or prerequisites. Sibling tools have distinct purposes (e.g., attestation, verification), but the description offers no help in choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
footprintBInspect
Aggregate footprint for an agent: total J, kWh, gCO2e, cost, and mean Landauer efficiency. Totals are exact sums of the ledger entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (aggregate sums) but does not state whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a retrieval operation, this gap in safety disclosure is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Aggregate footprint for an agent') and then lists specific metrics and notes about exact sums. It is concise with minimal waste, though could benefit from slightly better structure (e.g., separate sentence for behavioral notes).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown here), the description appropriately omits return value details. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., whether results are cached, time bounds for ledger entries) and behavioral transparency. It is adequate for a simple aggregation tool but leaves gaps in safety and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter-level descriptions exist. The single parameter `agent_id` is only titled 'Agent Id' in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format, source, or constraints). The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the tool description fails to enrich it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool aggregates footprint for an agent, listing specific metrics (J, kWh, gCO2e, cost, mean Landauer efficiency) and clarifying totals are exact sums. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_entries (raw data) and record_work (recording action) by focusing on aggregated financial and environmental values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist), nor does it mention when it should not be used (e.g., for raw ledger entries). Sibling tool names imply differentiation, but the description offers no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_entriesCInspect
List all ledger entries for an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or potential side effects, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could include a bit more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits information about return format, possible empty results, or default ordering, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'agent_id' parameter beyond its existence. No constraints or format hints are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (all ledger entries) scoped to an agent. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on attestation, verification, and footprint operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
record_workAInspect
Record a unit of agent compute work. energy_j = power_w * duration_s; carbon_g follows from grid intensity. If bit_ops is declared, the entry is validated against the Landauer floor (bit_ops * kB * T * ln2) — physically impossible claims are rejected. Idempotent on entry_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | ||
| bit_ops | No | ||
| power_w | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| entry_id | Yes | ||
| duration_s | Yes | ||
| temperature_k | No | ||
| price_minor_per_kwh | No | ||
| grid_intensity_g_per_kwh | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It discloses the energy and carbon calculation formulas, validation against the Landauer floor for bit_ops, and idempotency on entry_id. This goes beyond the schema, which lacks parameter descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, core logic, and idempotency with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds essential detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, calculations, validation, output schema exists), the description covers the main algorithm and constraints well. It lacks explanation of optional parameters and output structure, but the output schema likely fills that gap. The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for a few parameters (power_w, duration_s, bit_ops, grid_intensity, entry_id) by explaining their roles in calculations and validation. However, it does not cover all 9 parameters, such as agent_id, task, temperature_k, and price_minor_per_kwh, leaving some undefined despite 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a unit of agent compute work.' It also explains the calculation of energy and carbon, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'footprint' or 'list_entries' which serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining idempotency on entry_id and validation conditions for bit_ops, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attest' or 'footprint'. No usage exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_attestationCInspect
Verify an attestation by recomputing the entry hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attestation | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It merely states the verification method without disclosing side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or behavior on invalid input. The output schema exists but is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but lacks necessary detail. It earns its place by stating purpose, but does not front-load critical usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a nested input object and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain input structure, output format, or verification logic, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'attestation' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description provides no additional meaning. The agent is left guessing what the object should contain, making parameter usage ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Verify an attestation') and the method ('by recomputing the entry hash'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'attest' (create) and 'verify_chain' (chain verification), though the term 'entry hash' could be more contextualized.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest different actions (attest, verify_chain), but the description does not explicitly state usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_chainCInspect
Verify the tamper-evident hash chain of an agent's ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without indicating side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by adding a brief explanation of the output or usage context without becoming overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it still fails to explain what the verification result indicates or any conditions. The tool's complexity is low, but the description is too minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'agent_id', and the description adds no parameter information. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description should elaborate on its meaning or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it verifies a tamper-evident hash chain of an agent's ledger, distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_attestation. The verb and resource are specific, though 'ledger' could be defined further.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_attestation. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!