Skip to main content
Glama

Patina

by io.github.ramakrishnanhulk20

Get Patina score

get_patina_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a person's full Patina score by their Patina username. Patina reads the age and activity of accounts somebody already owns (YouTube, GitHub, Instagram, LinkedIn, Spotify and others) through the Vana data portability protocol, and turns that into a 0-100 score plus a signed attestation. 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. Call this when you want the whole picture: the score, the per-component breakdown, how many years of history are provable, which platforms corroborate each other, and an attestation you can verify offline. If you only need a yes or no about whether somebody clears a bar, call check_threshold instead. An unknown username comes back with found: false, which is a normal answer meaning no public Patina profile exists under that name. It is not an error, and it is not evidence against the person.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesThe person's Patina username, as it appears at patinadata.xyz/u/<username>.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already state the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: the unknown-username behavior (found: false is a normal answer, not an error), the attestation details, the scoring meaning, and the explicit limitations (does NOT prove uniqueness or liveness). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but well front-loaded: purpose first, then score interpretation, components, limitations, and routing. Each section adds value for an agent deciding whether to call the tool and how to interpret the result. Some of the detailed component weightings could be compressed without loss of core usability, so it is concise overall but not maximally tight.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and a clear annotation set, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the score means, how it is calculated, when to use this instead of check_threshold, and how to handle the not-found case. It also discloses limitations. Nothing important is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, including the exact URL pattern patinadata.xyz/u/<username>. The description merely says 'by their Patina username' and adds no further syntax or format details, so the schema already carries this weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a person's full Patina score by their Patina username.' It also clearly delineates the tool from sibling check_threshold by describing what 'the whole picture' includes and pointing to the sibling for y/n checks. The distinction is explicit and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when you want the whole picture...' and explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'If you only need a yes or no about whether somebody clears a bar, call check_threshold instead.' It also warns against using Patina as a proof-of-personhood signal. This is excellent usage guidance.

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