trooth-network

trooth_ask

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask about Trooth itself (products, pricing, methodology, how witnessing works). Answers come from Trooth's curated knowledge base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`question`	Yes	A question about Trooth

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup.
`subject`	Yes	The company, domain or token this answer is about.
`summary`	Yes	The same answer as the text content, for display.
`claim_url`	No	Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner.
`provenance`	Yes	Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "claim_url": {
+      "description": "Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "provenance": {
+      "description": "Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject.",
+      "enum": [
+        "witnessed_signed",
+        "signed_scan",
+        "live_observation",
+        "honest_absence",
+        "withheld_by_owner",
+        "knowledge_base",
+        "input_error"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup.",
+      "enum": [
+        "published",
+        "listed",
+        "unclaimed",
+        "private",
+        "observed",
+        "valid",
+        "invalid",
+        "expired",
+        "revoked",
+        "answered",
+        "out_of_scope",
+        "bad_input"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "subject": {
+      "description": "The company, domain or token this answer is about.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "The same answer as the text content, for display.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "provenance",
+    "subject",
+    "summary"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that answers come from Trooth's curated knowledge base, which clarifies the answer source and constrains expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, scope, and answer source with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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 single-parameter Q&A tool with an output schema, annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to ask, what scope is allowed, and where answers come from. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'question' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples of valid question topics, such as products, pricing, methodology, and how witnessing works.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Ask') and a clear resource scope ('about Trooth itself'), with concrete topics such as products, pricing, methodology, and how witnessing works. It is distinct from sibling tools in topic, though it does not explicitly name them to draw the contrast.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for questions about Trooth itself, especially the listed topic areas. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives, but the self-scoped subject matter is a strong usage signal.

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

All trooth-network tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: product Q&A, live security observation, published trust profile lookup, and token verification. Even the two domain-related tools are clearly separated by live scan versus published record.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the trooth_ prefix and snake_case style, but the post-prefix names are mixed: ask and verify are bare verbs, outside_in_read is a compound verb, and public_trust_profile is a noun. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped count for this server's purpose. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the core read-only lifecycle: product knowledge, live security reads, trust profile lookup, and token verification. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain.

Resources

Need Help?