Skip to main content
Glama

Patina

by io.github.ramakrishnanhulk20

Check a Patina trust bar

check_threshold
Read-onlyIdempotent

Decide whether somebody clears a trust bar, as a plain true or false. Give a Patina username plus min_score, min_years, or both. At least one is required. Returns pass, plus a one-sentence reason written to be quoted straight back to a user. This is the right tool for gating decisions: 'has this person been verifiably around for at least five years', 'is this account above 70'. Patina scores 0-100 for how much provable history an account holder has, not for how popular or how real-time-verified they are. 80+ (Deeply worn in) means a long, multi-year record corroborated across independent platforms. 60-79 (Well established) is a solid multi-year record. 40-59 (Some real history) is genuine but shorter or thinner. 20-39 (Thin, but genuine so far) is an early account with a little history. Under 20 (Not much to go on yet) looks freshly created, or has almost nothing connected. The inputs, heaviest first: Age (30, full marks at 12 years), Continuity (25, how many separate months the person was actually present for), Corroboration (15, independent sources agreeing on the date), Vouches (12, WHEN other people connected to them rather than how many), Depth (10, things made) and Breadth (8, independent accounts). Follower counts are deliberately worth almost nothing, because they are purchasable. Patina proves TENURE: that whoever holds these accounts has a long, corroborated, verifiable history. It does NOT prove uniqueness or liveness, and it is not a proof-of-personhood check. If you need 'exactly one human, present right now', Patina is the wrong signal and you should say so. When no profile exists, pass is false and found is false: treat that as UNKNOWN rather than as a failed check, because most people have never heard of Patina and absence proves nothing about them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesThe person's Patina username.
min_scoreNoLowest acceptable Patina score, 0-100. Passing requires score >= this.
min_yearsNoLowest acceptable years of provable history. Passing requires the oldest provable signal to be at least this many years old.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description is unusually rich: it documents return fields (`pass`, `reason`, `found`), explains missing-profile semantics, and clarifies that Patina does not prove uniqueness/liveness. However, this contradicts the listed annotation `openWorldHint: false`. The description explicitly instructs that an absent profile be treated as UNKNOWN rather than false, which is open-world behavior, while the annotation tells the opposite global assumption. Per the instructions, a direct contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 longer than the typical tool note, but it is front-loaded with the core task and invocation requirements before the background on score bands and inputs. Some parts, like the exact point weights for Age, Continuity, Corroboration, etc., are arguably beyond what an AI agent needs to call the tool, making it less compact than a top-tier definition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description still tells the agent exactly what to expect (`pass`, `reason`, and `found`), how to handle the missing-profile case, and when Patina is not the right source. It leaves no ambiguity for correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds important non-schema context: that at least one of min_score or min_years must be provided, that the score is an indicator of provable history rather than popularity, and the meaning of the score bands. This extra context transcends the raw parameter list.

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 immediately states a concrete verb and resource: 'Decide whether somebody clears a trust bar, as a plain true or false.' It also clearly distinguishes this from a numeric lookup by explaining the boolean pass/fail return, making it easy to tell apart from get_patina_score and similar siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'This is the right tool for gating decisions' and gives concrete examples like 'has this person been verifiably around for at least five years'. It also provides a clear when-not: Patina is wrong for uniqueness/liveness/personhood checks, which helps the agent route to another signal if needed.

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

All Patina 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: check_threshold is a yes/no gate, get_patina_score provides the full score breakdown, resolve_identity offers anonymous handle-based lookups, and verify_attestation handles signature verification. Even the overlapping get_patina_score and check_threshold are well-differentiated by their descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_threshold, get_patina_score, resolve_identity, verify_attestation. The verbs are specific and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action, making the pattern predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused trust-score API. Each tool adds a distinct capability—gating, detailed lookup, handle resolution, and attestation verification—without redundancy or bloat. The count feels proportionate to the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: retrieving a score, checking against a threshold, resolving identity from a handle while preserving privacy, and verifying attestations independently. No obvious missing operations exist for the stated purpose of querying and verifying Patina trust signals.

Resources