Skip to main content
Glama

Trillboards DOOH Advertising

by io.github.snehdhruv

verify_proof_of_play

Verify cryptographic proof of ad delivery or get campaign proofs.

Requires either campaign_id or proof_payload (at least one must be provided).

Two modes:

  1. Verify a proof: pass proof_payload with signature fields to verify

  2. Get proofs: pass campaign_id to get Ed25519-signed proofs for a campaign

Uses Ed25519 signatures (v2) that can be independently verified by third parties using the Trillboards public key.

WHEN TO USE:

  • Verifying that ads were actually delivered to screens

  • Exporting cryptographically signed proof records for auditors

  • Getting proof-of-play data for campaign transparency reports

RETURNS (verify mode):

  • valid: boolean, reason: string if invalid, version: 'v1' or 'v2'

RETURNS (get proofs mode):

  • campaignId, totalImpressions, proofsReturned

  • proofs: Array of signed impression proofs

  • pagination: { limit, hasMore, nextCursor }

  • signatureVersion, publicKeyUrl

EXAMPLE (verify): verify_proof_of_play({ proof_payload: { signature: "ed25519=abc123...", timestamp: "2026-03-10T15:30:00Z", adId: "ad_123", impressionId: "imp_456", screenId: "scr_789", deviceId: "dev_012" } })

EXAMPLE (get proofs): verify_proof_of_play({ campaign_id: "camp_abc123", start_date: "2026-03-01", end_date: "2026-03-10" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax proofs to return (default: 1000, used with campaign_id)
cursorNoPagination cursor from previous response (used with campaign_id)
end_dateNoEnd date for proof query (YYYY-MM-DD, used with campaign_id)
start_dateNoStart date for proof query (YYYY-MM-DD, used with campaign_id)
campaign_idNoCampaign ID to get proofs for (mutually exclusive with proof_payload)
proof_payloadNoProof data to verify (mutually exclusive with campaign_id). Must include: signature, timestamp, adId, impressionId, screenId, deviceId

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, but the description compensates by explaining cryptographic details (Ed25519 v2), third-party verifiability, expected return structures for both modes, and pagination behavior. It also documents the version distinction (v1/v2) and public key URL, offering deep insight beyond the schema.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear headings, bullet lists, and two concrete examples. Though lengthy, every section contributes necessary information for correct invocation, and the organization makes it easy to scan. No redundant language or filler.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, nested objects, two distinct modes, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers required inputs, return values, pagination, signature versions, and provides examples for both operation modes, ensuring the agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds considerable value by clarifying mode-specific parameter usage, explaining that proof_payload requires specific fields, and providing full JSON examples for both modes. It also explains pagination parameters and their context, going far beyond the bare schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Verify cryptographic proof of ad delivery or get campaign proofs.' It clearly distinguishes two modes (verify vs. get proofs) and uses unambiguous terminology, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from other tools.

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?

The description includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section listing concrete use cases, and explicitly states the mutual exclusivity of campaign_id and proof_payload. It also clarifies which mode applies based on input, providing strong guidance for tool selection.

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

All Trillboards DOOH Advertising 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are exact duplicates (get_task_status/tasks_get, list_tasks/tasks_list) and several overlapping analytics, attribution, and semantic search clusters (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention; find_similar_moments vs semantic_search_observations; get_campaign_attribution vs get_multi_touch_attribution vs get_roas). Detailed descriptions help, but with 83 tools an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_devices, create_campaign, delete_webhook), but there are notable inconsistencies: list_* and get_* are used interchangeably for list operations, attention tools mix conventions (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention), and the legacy tasks_get/tasks_list names break the established get_task_status/list_tasks pattern.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning device management, sensing, campaigns, media buys, attribution, webhooks, billing, API discovery, and AdCP protocol concerns. This is a broad API surface dump rather than a focused tool set, and it would be far better split into several coherent servers.

Completeness2/5

Despite the enormous surface, core campaign lifecycle is incomplete: create_campaign explicitly tells the agent to use update_campaign to activate a campaign, but no update_campaign tool exists, and there are no list/delete campaign tools. Significant capabilities exist for analytics, attribution, and webhooks, but the primary advertising workflow has a dead end.

Resources