trooth-network

trooth_public_trust_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a company's published, witnessed Trust Profile on Trooth by domain or slug. Returns the witnessed standing, pillar summary, and evidence-chain stats for companies that publish an OS profile, or the witnessed Network standing (signed scan result) for companies listed in the public directory. Unknown companies return an honest not-found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	Yes	Company domain (e.g. acme.com) or Trooth slug

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses what is returned: witnessed standing, pillar summary, evidence-chain stats, or signed network standing. It also explicitly states that unknown companies return an honest not-found, adding useful behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core action, the result variants, and the not-found behavior without filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct information.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema available, the description covers the essential remaining context: the two result categories and the handling of unknown companies. Nothing significant is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The single 'company' parameter already has 100% schema coverage as 'Company domain (e.g. acme.com) or Trooth slug.' The description restates 'by domain or slug' but adds no new format, validation, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a company's published, witnessed Trust Profile on Trooth by domain or slug.' It goes on to describe the exact return categories (OS profile results vs. public directory network standing), making it clearly distinct from siblings like trooth_ask or trooth_verify.

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 lookup context and conditions: use it for a published/witnessed Trust Profile or a public-directory listing, with an explicit not-found behavior. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, but the intended use case is still evident.

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?