Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

agent-erc8004-bridge

by io.github.jdhart81
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Export attestation

export_attestation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Export the agent's current trust score as an UNSIGNED ERC-8004 Validation Registry-shaped payload, content-addressed and ready for YOUR OWN signer to anchor on-chain.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chain_id": "<chain_id>",
      "token_id": "<token_id>"
    },
    "name": "export_attestation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chain_idYes
token_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds context those fields cannot carry: the payload is UNSIGNED (the caller must supply their own signer) and content-addressed. That 'your own signer' detail is the key behavioral fact an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifier (UNSIGNED) appears early. The all-caps emphasis is slightly noisy but does not obstruct reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the read-only, idempotent nature is covered by annotations. However, for a tool whose two required, zero-documented parameters determine which registry entry is exported, leaving both unexplained is a real completeness gap.

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 0% for chain_id and token_id, and the description adds no meaning for either — it never says which chain the ERC-8004 registry must live on or whether token_id refers to the agent's identity token. With both required parameters fully undocumented in schema and prose, the description fails to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (export) and a concrete artifact: an UNSIGNED ERC-8004 Validation Registry-shaped payload derived from the agent's current trust score. That format detail distinguishes it from generic siblings like score_agent, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with export_validation_response or verify_attestation, which also deal with attestation-shaped payloads.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'ready for YOUR OWN signer to anchor on-chain' suggests this is a pre-signing step, so an agent can infer it should be called before signing and anchoring. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over export_validation_response or verify_attestation, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

All agent-erc8004-bridge 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