Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

agent-erc8004-bridge

by io.github.jdhart81
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Export validation response

export_validation_response
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build UNSIGNED ERC-8004 Validation Registry validationResponse args from an Outcome Receipt (ORC v0.1): responseHash = receipt commitment, tag "orc/0.1", response 100 only if the bridge re-verifies the receipt AND your replay succeeded. Sign and submit with your own signer; this bridge holds no keys and writes to no 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": {
      "receipt": "<receipt>",
      "request_hash": "<request_hash>",
      "response_uri": "<response_uri>",
      "replay_ok": "<replay_ok>"
    },
    "name": "export_validation_response"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receiptYes
replay_okYes
request_hashYes
response_uriYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the output is unsigned, that the bridge holds no keys, that nothing is written to chain, and the conditional logic that gates response 100. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of describing failure behavior if the receipt fails re-verification.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool builds and ending with the ownership boundary the caller must respect. There is no filler, though the ERC-8004/ORC v0.1 jargon makes it terse to the point of being cryptic for an unfamiliar agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what goes in, what the output is (unsigned args), who signs, and the gating condition for response 100. Given the rich structured data, this is sufficient.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does so: it defines the semantics of receipt (an ORC v0.1 Outcome Receipt) and implies replay_ok's role via 'your replay succeeded'. request_hash and response_uri get no explanation at all, and the nested receipt object (additionalProperties: true) has its internal shape entirely undocumented.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: it builds UNSIGNED ERC-8004 Validation Registry validationResponse args from an Outcome Receipt (ORC v0.1). That phrasing cleanly separates it from sibling exporters like export_attestation and from verify_attestation, since it explicitly produces unsigned args rather than signing or submitting anything.

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?

Gives a clear usage rule: response is set to 100 only when the bridge re-verifies the receipt AND your replay succeeded, and the caller must sign and submit with their own signer. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to pick this over export_attestation, which is the nearest sibling, but the operational context is otherwise clear.

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