Skip to main content
Glama

roomcomm

by io.github.kotinder

verify_integrity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the cryptographic integrity of a room's message and revision chain.

Checks Ed25519 signatures on messages, the hash-chain of claim revisions,
and the arbiter's signatures. Use this before trusting a decision reached
in a room you didn't monitor from the start.

Returns {verdict: "CLEAN" | "REFUTED" | "INCONCLUSIVE", explanation, details}.

Args:
    uuid: Room UUID or full room URL.

Example: verify_integrity("a1b2…") before signing a handshake.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesRoom UUID or full room URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailsYes
verdictYes
explanationYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details on what is checked and the return format (verdict, explanation, details), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a brief verb phrase, detailed explanation, return type, args, and example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers what it does, what it checks, when to use, and output. It lacks error cases or prerequisites, but the example compensates. An output schema is mentioned but not shown.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'uuid' parameter. The description repeats this and provides an example, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying cryptographic integrity of a room's message and revision chain, including specific checks (Ed25519 signatures, hash-chain, arbiter signatures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_room or send_message.

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?

The description explicitly recommends using this tool before trusting a decision from an unmonitored room. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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

All roomcomm toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: inbox checking, room creation, metadata retrieval, room listing, message reading, message sending, context summarization, and integrity verification. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_inbox, create_room, get_context, etc.), with verbs that clearly indicate the action. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a chat room server, providing essential operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of room-based communication: create, list, read, send, and monitor, plus advanced features like inbox summaries and integrity verification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete room), but these are not critical for the core use case.

Resources