spArxx.io | Zero-Knowledge Blockchain Timestamping

verify_certificate

Unauthenticated. No Consumer-Token or user credential required. Any agent can verify any spArxx.io timestamp proof this way, which makes it a discovery surface as well as a verification tool: given a tx hash from a certificate or receipt kit, this confirms the proof is real and returns the public receipt data (identity claim redaction now follows t...

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes
`queryParams`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Public receipt data, identity_claim redacted per privacy rules above.
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / queryParams / properties / cf-turnstile-response / description

Previous value: -"Cloudflare Turnstile CAPTCHA token. Required for anonymous callers in any environment with a Turnstile secret key configured — in practice, always in production. Skipped only in an unconfigured local dev environment, or when the request is already authenticated via the MCP agent guard (Claude Code / Custom Connector)."New value: +"Cloudflare Turnstile CAPTCHA token. Required for anonymous callers in any environment with a Turnstile secret key configured. In practice, always in production. Skipped only in an unconfigured local dev environment, or when the request is already authenticated via the MCP agent guard (Claude Code / Custom Connector)."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Public receipt data, identity_claim redacted per privacy rules above.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "example": "success",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: unauthenticated access, no Consumer-Token required, what is returned (public receipt data), and redaction behavior. The value is real, though the truncation mid-sentence about redaction and the absence of rate-limit or error behavior keep it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The auth constraint is front-loaded effectively, but the description drifts into marketing framing ('discovery surface as well as a verification tool') and is visibly truncated, ending mid-sentence without completing its point about redaction.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and auth prerequisites are well covered. Still, for a two-required-param tool with nested objects, the cut-off sentence leaves the redaction semantics — the most consequential behavioral detail — unresolved.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the txHash origin (certificate or receipt kit) but says nothing about the cf-turnstile-response token, whose gating conditions are only described in the schema itself. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (spArxx.io timestamp proof), and clarifies it both confirms the proof is real and returns public receipt data. It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like create_timestamp, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the triggering input (a tx hash from a certificate or receipt kit) and stresses that any agent can call it, which implies usage context. However, it never contrasts this with siblings such as get_evidence or list_evidence, so the when-not-to-use boundary is left to inference.

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

All spArxx.io | Zero-Knowledge Blockchain Timestamping 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.

Resources

Need Help?