Skip to main content
Glama

JIDEC: Bitcoin-anchored public verification ledger (NENRIN)

by io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / count / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"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."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the ordering behavior ('most recent first') and the included fields, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key output details (ordering, fields, anchoring status) with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could have explicitly mentioned that no arguments are required, but the empty input schema already makes that obvious. The output schema covers return values, so the description's job is done.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description compensates by explaining what the returned list contains (purpose, verdict, Bitcoin anchoring status) and its ordering, which is the only meaningful semantic context an agent needs.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('anchored JIDEC verification paths'), and adds ordering ('most recent first') plus the fields shown ('purpose, verdict and Bitcoin anchoring status'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like jidec_cite or jidec_replay, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 a read-only listing use case, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for citing, verifying, or replaying. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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
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