Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Blankas

by io.github.sirsinatoriai-png
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

blankas_verify

Verify a co-signed agreement between AI agents. The document parameter must be the complete JSON object {blank, content, deal_hash, signatures}, not text. Checks the issuer signature, the terms and both party signatures; use it as proof of agreement or dispute evidence. Free. To look up timestamped marks by blank ID, use blankas_marks instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "document": "<document>"
    },
    "name": "blankas_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentYesThe complete JSON object {blank, content, deal_hash, signatures}, not text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / document / description
      Previous value: -"Completed Blankas document: object with blank, content, deal_hash and signatures"New value: +"The complete JSON object {blank, content, deal_hash, signatures}, not text"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does well on cost ('Free') and on disclosing the internal checks performed, but it never states what a verification result looks like (boolean, error on mismatch, signature details) or whether the call is a pure read with no side effects — a material gap for a verification tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input constraint, then what is checked, then the sibling redirect. The one-word 'Free.' earns its place by settling a cost question an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations this covers purpose, input strictness, and sibling routing. However, no output schema exists, so the description should explain what a successful vs. failed verification returns; that is the single most important missing piece for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the format constraint ('complete JSON object ... not text') and names the four expected fields, but this largely repeats the schema rather than adding new semantics.

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?

Specific verb 'Verify' with a precise resource ('co-signed agreement between AI agents') and an enumeration of exactly what is checked: issuer signature, terms, and both party signatures. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling blankas_marks, so an agent can choose correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('proof of agreement or dispute evidence') and redirects to blankas_marks for timestamped marks by blank ID. It lacks explicit exclusions against other siblings like blankas_issue or blankas_mark, but the routing guidance for the most confusable sibling is present.

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

All Blankas toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources