Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_kya

IDENTITY STANDARD (interop): read a Skyfire KYA ("Know Your Agent") JWT — the signed token binding a real human/business to an agent (Experian's identity layer). The IDENTITY counterpart to till_trust's ERC-8004 reputation lens. Parses the JWT + validates fail-closed (iss/sub present, not expired, aud matches YOU — anti-replay), and treats it as ATTESTED only when you confirm the signature verified against the issuer JWKS (BIII does not verify JWT signatures itself — no dep; supply verified:true or re-verify with the pointer). Advisory: attesting WHO backs an agent is NOT "safe to pay" — run till_trust on the address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesthe compact KYA JWT (header.payload.signature)
verifiedNoattest the JWT signature verified against the issuer's JWKS (BIII does not check it itself)
requireExpiryNostrict mode: REFUSE a KYA JWT with no exp (a never-expiring vouch). Default false — a no-exp token still attests but is flagged posture.expires:false
expectedAudienceNothe recipient this token must be addressed to (its aud) — anti-replay; recommended

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it validates the JWT fail-closed, does not verify signatures itself, requires the user to supply verified:true for attestation, and handles exp and aud fields. It also notes the default for requireExpiry and anti-replay mechanism.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is slightly verbose but well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering validation logic and advisory. Could be slightly more compact, but it remains informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains validation logic and hints at return values (e.g., posture.expires flag), but without an output schema, it should more clearly describe the full response structure and fields. It partially meets the needs of a complex JWT-reading tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema descriptions: token is the compact JWT, verified triggers attestation, requireExpiry default false with flag posture.expires:false, and expectedAudience for anti-replay. This enhances understanding.

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 reads a Skyfire KYA JWT for identity verification. It explicitly distinguishes itself from till_trust, noting it is the 'IDENTITY counterpart' to the reputation lens, providing specific verb and resource.

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 indicates this tool is for identity (KYA) while till_trust handles reputation, and advises running till_trust on the address for payment safety. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide a direct comparison for all scenarios.

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

All biii 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct, well-named purposes (vet_agent vs vet_merchant), but there is notable overlap between till_trust and till_vet_merchant (both provide trust verdicts), and till_launch_funder vs till_funder_history are closely related. The descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect between a few pairs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the till_ prefix, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (check_invoice, create_charge, watch_wallet) while others are noun phrases (key_exposure, open_approvals, rug_powers) or bare nouns (floor, trust, roll). This is readable but not predictable, so an agent cannot reliably guess a tool name from a verb.

Tool Count2/5

At 29 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an overgrown toolkit. Even with a broad domain, many tools are one-off niche scanners (till_b20_authentic, till_floor, till_meter) that inflate the surface and could be consolidated or externalized.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers the payment lifecycle comprehensively: create charges/invoices, check payments, verify delivery, generate receipts, rolls, and accounting exports. It also spans identity, trust, security scanning, and theft tracing. Minor gaps exist (no update/cancel for charges, no token-general vetting), but the non-custodial, read-only design makes these acceptable.

Resources