Skip to main content
Glama

dokimo-mcp

by io.github.ypratap11
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

recompute_merkle_root

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trustlessly recompute a dokimo-merkle-v1 root — LOCAL, no network, no trust.

Hash ``leaf`` in the leaf domain (H(0x00 ‖ leaf)) and replay ``proof_path`` —
a list of ``[sibling_hash, side]`` where side is "L" or "R" — hashing internal
nodes as H(0x01 ‖ left ‖ right). Compare the returned root to the ``root`` in an
evidence package yourself; if it differs, the package was tampered with.

Returns ``{recomputed_root, merkle_scheme, steps}``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leafYesThe raw leaf value (e.g. a JSON string like '{"k":"total_assets","v":"..."}'). Hashed in the leaf domain as H(0x00 ‖ leaf).
proof_pathYesOrdered Merkle proof path: a list of [sibling_hash_hex, side] pairs, where side is "L" if the sibling is on the left or "R" if on the right. Empty list for a single-leaf tree.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact algorithm: leaf domain hashing (H(0x00 ‖ leaf)), internal node hashing (H(0x01 ‖ left ‖ right)), proof path replay, and local/no-network behavior. It also complements the readOnly/idempotent/Hints. No contradiction with 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?

The description is tightly packed: a single overview sentence, a short algorithm explanation, a usage cue, and a return contract. It front-loads the tool's core value and avoids filler while retaining the technical detail needed for correct invocation.

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 two-parameter local recomputation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both inputs, the algorithm, trustless local behavior, the returned fields, and how to check for tampering. No external documentation is needed to call it safely.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: explains how leaf is hashed, what side "L" or "R" means, the order of proof_path, and that an empty list means leaf-only tree. This goes well beyond the schema's raw property descriptions.

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 ('recompute a dokimo-merkle-v1 root') and clarifies the scope: local, trustless, no network. It also distinguishes itself from full evidence verification by instructing the agent to compare the returned root to the package root itself.

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 clearly conveys its use case: recompute the Merkle root locally and compare it against an evidence package's root. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like verify_evidence_package or state when an agent should prefer that alternative, so it lacks a formal when-not instruction.

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

All dokimo-mcp 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.

Resources