Skip to main content
Glama

JIDEC: Bitcoin-anchored public verification ledger (NENRIN)

by io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg

List anchored verification paths

jidec_list_paths
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the anchored JIDEC verification paths (most recent first), with purpose, verdict and Bitcoin anchoring status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesHow many anchored paths the ledger returned. 0 means the ledger answered and holds none. It never means the ledger could not be read — that is an error.
pathsNo
lookupYesok = the ledger was read and the record exists. absent = the ledger was read and there is no such record. A read that FAILED never appears here: it comes back as a tool error (isError: true), so a consumer can never mistake this server's own failure for a statement about the ledger's contents.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "How many anchored paths the ledger returned. 0 means the ledger answered and holds none. It never means the ledger could not be read — that is an error.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lookup": {
+      "description": "ok = the ledger was read and the record exists. absent = the ledger was read and there is no such record. A read that FAILED never appears here: it comes back as a tool error (isError: true), so a consumer can never mistake this server's own failure for a statement about the ledger's contents.",
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "absent"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "paths": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "lookup",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the ordering (most recent first) and the specific fields returned, which provides some additional behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on the openWorldHint (results may change) or any other behavioral nuances like rate limits or external data sources. With annotations in place, the description adds limited but not negligible value, so a 3 is fair.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main action ('List the anchored JIDEC verification paths') and then specifies ordering and key fields. There is zero filler content, and every word adds value. It is concise and to the point, perfectly structured for quick consumption by an 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?

Given that the tool has no parametersley and includes an output schema (which presumably documents the returned fields), the description only needs to explain the purpose and distinguishing features. It clearly states the list is anchored verification paths, sorted most recent first, with purpose, verdict, and anchoring status. There is no missing information for an agent to decide whether to call this tool. The annotations cover safety, and the output schema covers structure. The description is complete for this simple read-only operation.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameters; it only clarifies what the tool lists grain order. According to the rubric, with 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is given. There is no conflict or missing info, so this score is justified.

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 verb 'List' with a specific resource ('anchored JIDEC verification paths'), and explicitly mentions the sorting (most recent first) and key fields (purpose, verdict, Bitcoin anchoring status). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jidec_cite, jidec_how_to_verify, and jidec_replay, which perform different actions. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 description implies usage: to retrieve a list of anchored verification paths. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools suggests a list operation is intended for inspection before citing or verifying, but this is not spelled out. There is no mention of when not to use it or any special conditions. This is minimal but not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

All JIDEC: Bitcoin-anchored public verification ledger (NENRIN) 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 has a unique purpose: verifying a citation, explaining how to verify manually, listing anchored paths, and replaying a path to detect drift. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the jidec_ prefix and use snake_case, but the verb structure is irregular: jidec_cite and jidec_replay are simple verbs, jidec_list_paths is verb+noun, and jidec_how_to_verify is a phrase. Minor deviation from a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a focused, well-scoped set for a verification-oriented ledger server. Each tool serves a clear need without bloat or redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The domain is verifying and auditing Bitcoin-anchored JIDEC records, and the tools cover the full workflow: verify a citation, learn how to verify manually, list anchored paths, and re-check a path against the live system. No obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated scope.

Resources