Skip to main content
Glama

JIDEC: Bitcoin-anchored public verification ledger (NENRIN)

by io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Re-observe an anchored path and report drift

jidec_replay
Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-observe an anchored JIDEC verification path against the live system right now and report drift. Returns MATCH (the live system still matches what was anchored) or DRIFT (it changed), node by node. Nodes that cannot be re-observed server-side are reported as deferred, never counted as drift.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citationYesjidec:path:<sha> | jidec:entry:<n> | ledger URL

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
verdictNoMATCH or DRIFT. Nodes that could not be re-observed are deferred, never counted as drift.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "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"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "description": "MATCH or DRIFT. Nodes that could not be re-observed are deferred, never counted as drift.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "lookup"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns MATCH or DRIFT node by node, and nodes that cannot be re-observed are deferred rather than counted as drift. This goes beyond basic safety and explains edge-case handling.

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 three sentences: first states the primary action, second explains the return values (MATCH/DRIFT), and third clarifies the deferred behavior. No filler or redundancy; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains the core operation, result interpretation, and an important edge case (deferred nodes). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return formats.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'citation' parameter with clear format examples. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'anchored path', so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Re-observe an anchored JIDEC verification path against the live system right now and report drift.' It specifies the resource (anchored JIDEC verification path) and the action (re-observe and report), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on drift detection with MATCH/DRIFT output.

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 provides clear usage context: this tool is for checking current alignment of an anchored path via re-observation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the focus on drift reporting implies when to use it. A 4 reflects clear context without explicit exclusions.

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