Skip to main content
Glama

GAIP Digital Art Intelligence Agent

by io.github.tjcgraham-rgb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Provenance showcase: compares public evidence for rights-clear art collections, flags conflicts.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
URL

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of overlap or misselection. The tool's purpose is singular and clearly described.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (evaluate_public_art_evidence). There are no other names to introduce inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

The server exposes only one tool, which is thin for a standalone server. While the tool itself is substantial, a single-operation surface is borderline per the rubric.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core evidence-comparison workflow, including field-level verdicts and conflict resolution guidance. It lacks any retrieval or post-comparison action, but that is explicitly out of scope.

Available Tools

1 tool
evaluate_public_art_evidenceA
Read-only
Inspect

Compare public digital-art / NFT records (marketplace listing, block explorer, artist catalogue) field by field. Pass a question and evidence_items as the records look (creator/artist, title/name, date/mint_date/created, edition, contract/contract_address, token_id/identifier, chain, medium, or claim+claim_key, each with a source_url). Returns per-field AGREES / CONFLICT / SINGLE_SOURCE with values by source, what evidence would resolve each conflict, a CONSISTENT / CONFLICTS_FOUND / INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE verdict and a receipt. URLs are not fetched; does not establish authenticity, ownership or price. Free, read-only, no account. Inputs must be public and non-personal; calling declares that (data_classification defaults to PUBLIC).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionYes
syntheticNo
episode_idNo
evidence_itemsYes
continuity_handleNo
data_classificationNoPUBLIC
independent_operator_idNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it does not fetch URLs, does not establish authenticity/ownership/price, is free/read-only/no account, and declares data classification. This is rich, non-contradictory disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and core input structure. Every sentence contributes useful information: input shape, return format, limitations, and cost/auth details. The long field-alias list is necessary but makes the paragraph dense; slightly better formatting would help.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return values (per-field AGREES/CONFLICT/SINGLE_SOURCE, resolution guidance, verdict, receipt). It covers safety and data-classification constraints well. The main gap is that optional metadata parameters are not explained, though the core comparison workflow is complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for the core required parameters and evidence_items: it names many expected field aliases (creator/artist, title/name, date/mint_date/created, edition, contract/contract_address, token_id/identifier, chain, medium, claim+claim_key, source_url) and notes data_classification defaults to PUBLIC. However, four optional top-level parameters (synthetic, episode_id, continuity_handle, independent_operator_id) remain unexplained.

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 (Compare) and resource (public digital-art / NFT records) with field-by-field scope. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema. No siblings exist, so sibling differentiation is moot.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: comparing marketplace, block explorer, and artist catalogue records. Also gives when-not guidance ('URLs are not fetched; does not establish authenticity, ownership or price') and preconditions ('inputs must be public and non-personal'). No alternative tools are named, but none exist.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Changedevaluate_public_art_evidence3 fields changed
      • addedInput schema / examples
        Added value: +[
+  {
+    "evidence_items": [
+      {
+        "chain": "ethereum",
+        "contract": "0xa11ce00000000000000000000000000000000042",
+        "creator": "Artist A",
+        "edition": "1 of 10",
+        "identifier": "7",
+        "name": "Harbour at Dusk",
+        "source": "marketplace_listing",
+        "source_url": "https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0xa11ce00000000000000000000000000000000042/7"
+      },
+      {
+        "chain": "eth",
+        "contract_address": "0xA11CE00000000000000000000000000000000042",
+        "mint_date": "2021-03-14T09:26:53Z",
+        "source": "block_explorer",
+        "source_url": "https://etherscan.io/nft/0xa11ce00000000000000000000000000000000042/7",
+        "token_id": "7"
+      },
+      {
+        "artist": "Artist A",
+        "created": "2021",
+        "edition": "1/5",
+        "medium": "Digital painting",
+        "source": "artist_catalogue",
+        "source_url": "https://artist-a.example/catalogue/harbour-at-dusk",
+        "title": "Harbour at Dusk"
+      }
+    ],
+    "question": "Do these public records agree on the creator and the edition?"
+  }
+]
      • addedInput schema / properties / data_classification / default
        Added value: +"PUBLIC"
      • changedInput schema / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "data_classification",
-  "question",
-  "evidence_items"
-]New value: +[
+  "question",
+  "evidence_items"
+]
  2. 1 tool update
    • First observedevaluate_public_art_evidence

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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