Skip to main content
Glama

dokimo-mcp

by io.github.ypratap11
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_evidence_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask Dokimo to check one record of an evidence package against the on-chain anchor.

Sends the package to Dokimo's public A2A endpoint, which recomputes the Merkle
proof AND checks the anchored commitment (root + rule version, plus the close
summary for v2) against the anchor on Base. The verdict is Dokimo's answer and
is not signed. ``package`` must contain: ``leaf`` (str), ``root`` (str),
``proof_path`` (list of [sibling_hash, "L"|"R"]), and
``rule_version_commitment`` (str); for a v2 close also ``summary`` and
``binding``; ``close_id`` is optional/echoed.

Returns the verdict: ``{verified, checks:{recompute, onchain_anchor,
rule_version_bound}, ...}``. ``verified`` is true only if the proof recomputes
AND the commitment is anchored on-chain. It covers this one record only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesThe Dokimo evidence package to verify. Required keys: 'leaf' (str), 'root' (str), 'proof_path' (list of [sibling_hash, "L"|"R"]), and 'rule_version_commitment' (str). For a dokimo-anchor-v2 close (every close anchored after the v2 cutover) also 'summary' (the close summary) and 'binding' (the leaf's evidence binding); without them the package is checked as legacy v1. 'close_id' (str) is optional and echoed back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / package / description
      Previous value: -"The Dokimo evidence package to verify. Required keys: 'leaf' (str), 'root' (str), 'proof_path' (list of [sibling_hash, \"L\"|\"R\"]), and 'rule_version_commitment' (str). 'close_id' (str) is optional and echoed back."New value: +"The Dokimo evidence package to verify. Required keys: 'leaf' (str), 'root' (str), 'proof_path' (list of [sibling_hash, \"L\"|\"R\"]), and 'rule_version_commitment' (str). For a dokimo-anchor-v2 close (every close anchored after the v2 cutover) also 'summary' (the close summary) and 'binding' (the leaf's evidence binding); without them the package is checked as legacy v1. 'close_id' (str) is optional and echoed back."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call leaves the process (public A2A endpoint), that the verdict is Dokimo's answer and is NOT signed, and that missing v2 fields silently downgrade the check to legacy v1. That last point is a non-obvious behavioral fallback an agent must know about before calling.

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-loads the core action, then follows with transport, required payload, and return shape in a logical order with no filler. It is a bit dense for one paragraph and the trailing line break is untidy, but every sentence carries 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by sketching the return object (verified, checks: recompute, onchain_anchor, rule_version_bound) and the exact condition for verified=true. Combined with full parameter disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the nested package schema already enumerates leaf, root, proof_path, rule_version_commitment, summary, binding and the optional close_id. The description largely restates those same keys, adding only slight emphasis on the v1/v2 implication, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'check one record of an evidence package against the on-chain anchor', and names what is being validated (Merkle proof + anchored commitment). The scope 'covers this one record only' plus the emphasis on on-chain anchoring clearly separates it from recompute_merkle_root and dokimo_agent_card.

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?

Gives clear context for use: submit a package to Dokimo's A2A endpoint to get a verdict, and states the scope limit ('this one record only'). It never explicitly names the sibling recompute_merkle_root as the lighter-weight alternative for a local recompute, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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
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