Neutral W3C DID/VC identity and reputation oracle for AI agents (did:key/did:web, eddsa-jcs-2022).
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.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Tools are mostly distinct: declarations target different record types (principal, receipt, succession), and get/resolve have clear read purposes. However, 'register' and 'declare_principal' could be slightly confusing since both involve agent identity; descriptions clarify but overlap remains.
All names use lowercase with underscores, and three share the 'declare_' prefix. 'get_reputation' and 'resolve' are single verbs, but they follow a predictable verb-based style. Minor inconsistency from mixing 'declare_*' with standalone verbs.
Six tools is well within the sweet spot for an identity/reputation server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The surface covers core lifecycle: register agent, declare bindings/receipts/succession, get reputation, and resolve DIDs. Missing explicit queries for individual declarations, but the append-only design and aggregated reputation VC mitigate the gap.
declare_principalAInspectmcp-v2: registers a Principal Binding signed by the principal (SPEC-principal-binding-v1). Binds an agent to an accountable person/organization (did:key/did:web). Append-only, declarative, anti-Sybil.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binding | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds behavioral traits such as 'Append-only' (no modifications/deletions), 'declarative' (likely idempotent), 'anti-Sybil' (purpose), and 'signed by the principal' (authentication). These go beyond the schema and provide useful behavioral context.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('registers a Principal Binding') and packs in spec version, purpose, and behavioral traits without wasted words. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with one open object parameter and no output schema, the description gives a good high-level overview but leaves the binding parameter's structure underspecified. The agent would likely need additional documentation or examples to construct a valid binding. Thus, it is not fully complete.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It hints at the binding content by mentioning 'agent', 'person/organization', and 'did:key/did:web', but does not specify the binding structure or required fields. Some semantic meaning is added, but it is insufficient for a fully open object parameter.
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 verb 'registers' and the resource 'Principal Binding', and further explains it binds an agent to an accountable person/organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like declare_receipt and declare_succession by specifying the exact binding type.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to register a Principal Binding and bind an agent to an accountable entity. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names and the specific binding term.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
declare_receiptAInspectmcp-v2: registers an Interaction Receipt signed by an accountable counterpart (SPEC-reputation-receipt-v1). review/dispute -> feeds the score. Append-only, anti self-attestation, anti-Sybil (bound issuer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states append-only behavior, anti-self-attestation, and anti-Sybil (bound issuer), providing valuable safety and integrity constraints. It doesn't cover return values or error cases, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.
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 reasonably concise and packs multiple pieces of information into two sentences. The structure is a bit dense: the 'review/dispute' fragment is ambiguous, but the overall length is appropriate and each phrase adds meaning.
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 nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides some essential context (append-only, anti-Sybil) but leaves gaps: the receipt format is not explained, the 'review/dispute' flow is unclear, and no usage workflow is outlined. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the 'receipt' object completely unspecified. The description mentions the receipt is signed and references a SPEC, but without detailing the expected fields or structure, the agent cannot correctly construct the receipt parameter. The description does not compensate enough for the schema gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('registers') and resource ('Interaction Receipt') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the receipt declaration for reputation scoring. The reference to the SPEC and mention of feeding the score clarify its unique role.
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 provides contextual hints about when to use it ('review/dispute -> feeds the score') but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like declare_principal or declare_succession. No 'use this when' language is present, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
declare_successionCInspectmcp-v2: registers a self-signed Succession Statement (SPEC-succession-v1). Append-only, declarative, no transfer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| statement | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Append-only, declarative, no transfer' and 'self-signed', which inform the agent about side-effects and semantics. However, with no annotations, it misses other aspects like authentication, idempotency, error behavior, or return values, showing both value and gaps.
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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It leads with the verb 'registers' and includes the resource and key qualifiers, with no wasted words or repetition.
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?
The description is insufficient for invoking the tool correctly given the open-ended schema. It never defines the structure of the Succession Statement, the signing mechanism, or what 'append-only' means operationally. The spec reference exists but is not elaborated enough to be actionable.
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 input schema defines a single 'statement' object with no properties, and the description does not explain what fields a Succession Statement should contain or what 'self-signed' means in practice. With 0% schema description coverage, the complete lack of parameter guidance makes it impossible to construct a valid request.
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 it 'registers a self-signed Succession Statement' and references SPEC-succession-v1, which is a specific action and resource. The name and resource help differentiate it from siblings like declare_principal and declare_receipt, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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. The qualifiers 'Append-only, declarative, no transfer' describe behavioral constraints rather than usage context. There are no prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_reputationCInspectReturns the live Reputation VC (public, always present).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the VC is public and always present, but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or error behavior for a read operation.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it omits parameter details and context, making it slightly under-specified for a tool description.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'Reputation VC' is, what arguments are needed, or what the response looks like, leaving significant gaps for an 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no meaning for the 'did' parameter beyond its name. The agent must infer that 'did' is a decentralized identifier, and no format or example is provided.
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 that the tool returns a 'live Reputation VC', identifying the resource and the verb. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve', but the 'get' vs 'declare/register' distinction is implied.
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 like 'resolve'. The only implicit hint is 'public, always present', suggesting availability, but without explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
registerCInspectRegister an agent (1 signed call, idempotent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| public_key_multibase | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses two behavioral traits: '1 signed call' and 'idempotent'. With no annotations, this adds useful context about authentication and repeatability. However, it does not explain what the call returns, side effects, error conditions, or whether the idempotency ensures no duplicate agents.
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 brief, with no wasted words ('Register an agent (1 signed call, idempotent)'). While this is concise, it is under-specified to the point of being almost terse, and the parenthetical feels informative but incomplete.
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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters (two required, one nested), the description is insufficient. It omits return values, expected input format, and the overall registration workflow, leaving the agent to infer too much.
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%, and the description makes no mention of the parameters (public_key_multibase, proof, metadata). It fails to explain their meaning or relationships, leaving the agent with only the bare schema types. This is a significant gap because the description should compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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: 'Register an agent', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like declare_principal and resolve, though not explicitly, by focusing on registration rather than declaration or resolution. The added parenthetical '1 signed call, idempotent' gives a hint of behavior but not full differentiation.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which one might choose register over declare_principal or declare_receipt. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolveCInspectResolve a DID -> DID Document + metadata (public).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the operation is 'public', which suggests no auth, but it does not state whether this is read-only, what happens for invalid DIDs, or error behavior. Significant transparency gaps remain.
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: 'Resolve a DID -> DID Document + metadata (public).' It is concise and contains no fluff.
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?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives the core purpose but omits necessary usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable 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 schema has one required parameter 'did' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description says 'Resolve a DID' but adds no format details, examples, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 function: resolving a DID to its DID Document and metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_reputation (which queries reputation) and declare_principal/declare_receipt/register (which are write operations). However, it does not elaborate on what 'resolve' entails in this specific context.
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 about when to use resolve versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with get_reputation or other sibling tools. The usage is only implied by the generic phrase 'Resolve a DID'.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!