agent-erc8004-bridge

Import registration

import_registration

Import an ERC-8004 Identity Registry record (chain_id + ERC-721 token_id + agentURI + owner). Idempotent: re-import updates in place. Returns the canonical record with its deterministic bridge DID (did:viridis:erc8004::).

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>",
      "agent_uri": "<agent_uri>",
      "owner": "<owner>"
    },
    "name": "import_registration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owner`	Yes
`chain_id`	Yes
`metadata`	No
`token_id`	Yes
`agent_uri`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts 'Idempotent: re-import updates in place', while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about the tool's repeat-call semantics and would mislead an agent deciding whether to retry or re-run the import. The otherwise useful disclosure of the returned bridge DID format does not offset the conflict.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity before the idempotency and return-value notes; nothing is padded. Minor deduction because one of those sentences is actively misleading rather than earning its place.

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 spelling out the returned record and DID format is optional rather than required. For a mutating import tool with no annotation coverage of permissions or overwrite scope, the description leaves the 'metadata' parameter and any auth/prerequisite requirements unaddressed, and its idempotency claim conflicts with structured data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 burden, and it does add domain meaning by tying token_id to ERC-721 and chain_id to the registry chain. But 'metadata' (a fifth parameter with a null default) is never mentioned, and there is no format or constraint guidance for agentURI or owner.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (import an ERC-8004 Identity Registry record) and enumerates the identifying fields (chain_id, ERC-721 token_id, agentURI, owner), which is far more specific than the bare name 'import_registration'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as bind_identity or list_registrations, so an agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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?

The clause 're-import updates in place' implicitly tells the caller that repeated imports are safe to perform rather than needing a pre-check, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (bind_identity, list_registrations) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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 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.