Skip to main content
Glama

Patina

by io.github.ramakrishnanhulk20

Resolve a platform handle to a Patina score

resolve_identity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find out whether the person behind a platform handle has a Patina score, WITHOUT learning who they are. Supported sources: github, instagram, linkedin. Accepts a bare handle, an @handle, or a full profile URL. Returns only three things: whether a public Patina profile is linked to that account, its score, and its years of history. It deliberately never returns the Patina username, and never returns which other platforms that person has connected, because doing so would turn this into a cross-platform de-anonymisation tool. Do not ask it for those; it cannot provide them. Other platforms (youtube, spotify, amazon, uber) are NOT supported here, because for those Patina stores an internal platform id rather than a handle a person could type. Those platforms still count fully toward the score itself; only this lookup is limited. Email addresses are refused outright. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesThe handle on that platform. 'torvalds', '@torvalds' and 'https://github.com/torvalds' are all accepted.
sourceYesWhich platform the handle belongs to. Supported for lookup: github, instagram, linkedin. Anything else returns an explanation rather than a result.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotent hints, the description details behavioral traits: it never returns the Patina username, never reveals connected platforms (to avoid de-anonymization), refuses emails, and provides a full interpretation of score bands. This goes far beyond what annotations convey and is fully consistent with them. It also explains why certain platforms are excluded from lookup, giving honest constraints.

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 (200+ words) but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose and constraints, then explains the scoring interpretation and weightings. Every section serves a purpose for correct usage—the score bands and input weights are essential for interpreting results. While it could be more concise, the length is justified given the tool's complexity, and it maintains clear topical separation.

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?

The description is fully self-contained for an agent to call this tool correctly: it names the expected inputs (source, handle with format examples), the exact output structure (three things: linked profile, score, years), and the full meaning of the score. No output schema exists, so this is the sole source of return-value expectation, and it provides enough. It also covers edge cases like unsupported sources and email refusals, making it impossible for an agent to be surprised.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies that handles can be a bare handle, @handle, or full URL (though the schema already shows this), and it deeply explains the score meaning and weighting factors (Age, Continuity, etc.) that are not in the schema. This enriches parameter understanding for the agent, even if it doesn't add new facts about the source parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: resolve a platform handle to a Patina score without revealing the person's identity. It names the supported sources (github, instagram, linkedin) and states precisely what it returns (profile link existence, score, years of history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_patina_score or verify_attestation, which serve different functions, even without naming them.

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 strong usage boundaries: it lists supported platforms, explicitly states unsupported ones (youtube, spotify, amazon, uber) and why, refuses email addresses, and warns against asking for data it cannot return. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or when to prefer them, leaving some routing to inference. It clearly says 'do not ask it for those; it cannot provide them,' which guides agent behavior well.

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