Skip to main content
Glama

TomeVault

by io.github.olijboyd

verify_attestation

Read-only

Verify a TomeVault attestation document (the contents of a repo's .tome/attestation.json). Confirms the detached signature is genuinely TomeVault's against the published key, and, if the signed file's text is supplied, that the file has not drifted since it was signed. Returns the signed verdict; consistency in it is a PREDICTION (cross-model divergence risk), never a verified fact. Nothing submitted is stored.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoOptional: the instruction file the attestation signs, to also confirm it has not changed.
attestationYesThe .tome/attestation.json document text.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Disclosures beyond annotations: states that consistency is a PREDICTION (not a verified fact) and that nothing submitted is stored. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important caveats about the interpretation of results.

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?

Two well-structured sentences that front-load the purpose and provide necessary details without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains inputs, process, output (signed verdict), and a critical caveat about the prediction nature of consistency. No gaps remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description provides additional context for the 'content' parameter (the instruction file). While the schema already describes both parameters, the description clarifies their roles beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool verifies a TomeVault attestation document, specifying the actions: confirming the signature's authenticity and checking file integrity. The verb 'verify' and resource 'attestation document' are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_content or get_provenance.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (verification of attestation and content consistency). Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct alternatives among siblings, but the purpose is well-defined.

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

All TomeVault 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: get_tome and get_vault_item both fetch a single item's content without clarifying the relationship between tomes and vault items, and connect_source overlaps with get_workspace_status for reporting connected sources. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between these pairs remain unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_tome, list_vault_items, scan_content, verify_attestation). There are minor deviations such as deliver_to_source with its preposition and connect_source whose name undersells its reporting behavior, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count4/5

Fifteen tools is within a reasonable range for a workspace, content-management, and attestation service, and most tools map to a distinct concern. The count feels slightly heavy because a few tools (get_tome vs get_vault_item, connect_source vs get_workspace_status) could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

Read, search, scan, versioning, and delivery workflows are well covered, along with members, billing, and workspace status. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no disconnect/remove for sources, no remove or role-update for members, and no delete or explicit approve action for vault items/versions.

Resources