FeedOracle Trust Layer - 10-tool cross-server trust: signing, anchoring, verification.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
The active tools are mostly distinct, but the three withdrawn tools (evidence_anchor, get_signed_fact, verify_signature) all do the same thing—return a withdrawal notice—creating ambiguity. Additionally, hallucination_check and verify_claim both compare statements against evidence and could be confused. The presence of non-functional tools pollutes the toolset.
Tool names mix descriptive compound nouns (agent_reputation, trust_status) with imperative verb phrases (verify_claim, get_signed_fact). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and the withdrawn tools add naming diversity without helping. All use underscores, but the grammatical structure varies.
At 10 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but three tools are withdrawn and non-functional, so the effective tool count is 7. This padding makes the set feel slightly inflated and could mislead agents about available capabilities.
The withdrawal of get_signed_fact and evidence_anchor removes the ability to fetch or anchor signed evidence, leaving only verification. There is no way to directly retrieve signed facts or manage evidence, so the surface has significant gaps for a trust/verification domain. Active tools cover verification, reputation, freshness, provenance, and health, but miss core data access operations.
agent_reputationAInspectGet trust score and reputation for an AI agent from FeedOracle KYA (Know Your Agent) system. Returns trust level (UNVERIFIED → CERTIFIED), score (0-100), and registration details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | No | Agent's client_id from KYA registration | |
| agent_name | No | Agent name to search (if client_id unknown) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a 'Get' (read-only) and describes the output (trust level from UNVERIFIED to CERTIFIED, score 0-100, registration details). It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a simple lookup, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely explains purpose and returns. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return fields. It does not specify how the tool handles unknown agents or the interaction between parameters, but for a straightforward reputation lookup, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters (client_id and agent_name) already explained. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get trust score and reputation for an AI agent from FeedOracle KYA'. It specifies the resource (AI agent reputation) and the system (KYA), and the return value (trust level, score, registration details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_claim or trust_status, which focus on claims or general trust.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by mentioning the FeedOracle KYA system and the specific data it returns. This implies when to use the tool (when you need an agent's reputation from KYA). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
confidence_gateBInspectDecision gate for agents: should I proceed, exercise caution, abstain, or escalate? Evaluates multi-factor confidence for a specific action type (cite, trade, report, recommend) against a threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Token to evaluate | |
| action_type | No | What the agent wants to do: cite, trade, report, recommend | cite |
| min_confidence | No | Minimum confidence to proceed (0-100, default: 70) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions evaluating confidence against a threshold and asks 'should I proceed, exercise caution, abstain, or escalate?', but it does not clearly state the output format, what triggers each outcome, or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about the exact response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, opens with a clear purpose, and includes no unnecessary words. The second sentence adds specific detail about the evaluation context (action types and threshold) without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must explain return values. The hint about 'proceed, exercise caution, abstain, or escalate' suggests categorical outputs but remains vague. An agent cannot confidently act on the tool's result without explicit output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; each parameter (symbol, action_type, min_confidence) already has a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond restating action types ('cite, trade, report, recommend') already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a 'Decision gate for agents' and explains what it evaluates (multi-factor confidence for specific action types against a threshold). This distinct verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_claim or hallucination_check, which focus on factual validation rather than action decisions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool ('Decision gate for agents') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as agent_reputation or trust_status. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
evidence_anchorAInspectWITHDRAWN (2026-08-09). This tool does not submit any blockchain transaction and creates no on-chain anchor or proof; it returns a non-success withdrawal notice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fact | Yes | The fact to anchor | |
| symbol | No | Related token symbol (optional) | |
| framework | No | Framework context: trust_layer, mica, dora | trust_layer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses that no blockchain transaction occurs, no anchor/proof is created, and a non-success notice is returned. This is complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with the key signal 'WITHDRAWN' front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a withdrawn tool, the description explains its current behavior, lack of side effects, and return value. No output schema needed for such a simple notice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is withdrawn and returns a non-success withdrawal notice, which is a specific behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it no longer performs anchoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly notes 'WITHDRAWN' and that it creates no on-chain anchor, implying it should not be used for anchoring. It does not name alternatives though.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
freshness_guardAInspectCheck if data is current, stale, or expired. Prevents agent decisions based on outdated information. Configurable max age threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Token symbol (optional — checks overall feed if omitted) | |
| max_age_seconds | No | Maximum acceptable age in seconds (default: 300) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core check behavior and configurable threshold, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a status, boolean, or age), or how it behaves when no symbol is provided (checks overall feed). The purpose is clear, but some behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the rationale and configuration option. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema), and the description covers the core functionality and purpose. It communicates the tri-state result ('current, stale, or expired') and the configurable threshold, which is sufficient for basic usage. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return format, but this is not critical for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds only a slight contextualization of max_age_seconds ('Configurable max age threshold'), but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('data'), and specifies the three possible outcomes: current, stale, or expired. It also explains the tool's purpose ('Prevents agent decisions based on outdated information'), which distinguishes it from the verification-focused sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when data age is a concern ('Prevents agent decisions based on outdated information') and mentions a configurable threshold, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions that would make the tool inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_signed_factAInspectWITHDRAWN (2026-08-09). This tool does not produce or verify a cryptographic signature and returns a non-success withdrawal notice. Do not rely on it for signed evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol: USDC, RLUSD, EURC, USDT, DAI | |
| fact_type | No | Type: price, peg, market_cap, reserve | price |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does not produce or verify signatures and that it returns a non-success withdrawal notice. The withdrawal date is also given, providing complete transparency about its status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the critical 'WITHDRAWN' flag front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning: the status, the non-functionality, the behavior, and a warning. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives all essential context: it is withdrawn, does not perform its named function, and returns a non-success notice. An agent immediately knows to avoid invoking it. Nothing further is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters (symbol with enum, fact_type with default and description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but since the tool is withdrawn and returns a standard notice regardless of arguments, the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool is 'WITHDRAWN' and clarifies that it 'does not produce or verify a cryptographic signature,' directly contradicting the name's implication. It also specifies the actual behavior: 'returns a non-success withdrawal notice.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_signature and evidence_anchor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit when-not instruction: 'Do not rely on it for signed evidence.' This unequivocally tells the agent this tool should not be used for its original purpose, which is sufficient guidance for a deprecated tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hallucination_checkBInspectCompare an agent's statement against ground truth evidence. Detects factual mismatches and dangerous hallucination patterns (absolute language, suspect claims). Returns evidence checks and red flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional context for the statement | |
| statement | Yes | The statement to check against evidence |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool looks for factual mismatches and specific hallucination patterns, and returns evidence checks and red flags. However, it does not disclose limitations, potential false positives, or whether it is purely read-only. Some behavioral context is provided but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, information-dense sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and output shape ('evidence checks and red flags'). However, it leaves some ambiguity about what exactly an 'evidence check' or 'red flag' looks like, which might be important for an agent to interpret results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters ('statement' and 'context'), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Compare an agent's statement against ground truth evidence') and a distinctive focus ('dangerous hallucination patterns', 'absolute language', 'suspect claims'). This differentiates it from simple verification tools like verify_claim, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling tools (e.g., verify_claim, provenance_trace, confidence_gate). The description implies use for hallucination detection, but does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
provenance_traceAInspectFull data provenance chain — traces every data point from external source (CoinGecko, ESMA, on-chain) through FeedOracle processing to final delivery. Each step individually hashed. Supports EU AI Act Art. 13 transparency requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol to trace |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each step is individually hashed and that it covers the entire chain from source to delivery, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, return format, or any side effects, leaving small gaps but still providing substantial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences convey the tool's scope, hashing behavior, and compliance relevance without unnecessary words. The em dash provides good structure and front-loads the main action. Every sentence earns its place, making this highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does and why it matters, making it invokable. However, it omits details about the expected return structure or error behavior, which would enhance completeness for an agent calling it directly. Given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single 'symbol' parameter as the token symbol to trace (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage. No extra constraints or format guidance are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool traces the full data provenance chain from external sources through processing to delivery. It identifies the specific resource (provenance chain) and the action (traces), distinguishing it from sibling verification tools. The scope is explicit, mentioning sources like CoinGecko, ESMA, and on-chain data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for EU AI Act Art. 13 transparency compliance, which provides a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this trace tool versus alternatives like verify_claim or trust_status. Usage context is present but exclusionary guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trust_statusAInspectTrust Layer infrastructure health, capabilities, and component status. Shows which verification services are online and what the Trust Layer can do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool reports which services are online and what the Trust Layer can do, implying a read-only status check. However, it lacks details about output format, potential latency, or auth requirements, leaving transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and no filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter status tool, the description conveys the key information: it checks infrastructure health and service capabilities. It could describe the output format since no output schema exists, but the essential purpose is clearly captured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific purpose: reporting Trust Layer infrastructure health, capabilities, and component status. The verb 'shows' and resource 'Trust Layer infrastructure' distinguish it from sibling verification and analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for checking system health and capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like verify_claim or hallucination_check. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_claimAInspectVerify an agent's claim against FeedOracle signed evidence. Checks if a statement (e.g. 'USDC market cap is $32B') matches live, cryptographically signed data. Returns verified/partially_verified/unverified with confidence score and recommended action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | The claim to verify, e.g. 'USDC has $32B market cap' | |
| symbol | No | Token symbol (auto-detected from claim if omitted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return categories, confidence score, and recommended action, and implies read-only behavior through 'verify/checks'. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficiently structured sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second outlines the return contract. No redundant content, and the example is embedded naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes return categories, confidence score, and recommended action, plus the live signed evidence context. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but the 'unverified' category covers many possible gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example claim but does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the symbol auto-detection detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (verify) against a specific resource (FeedOracle signed evidence), includes a concrete example, and defines distinct output categories (verified/partially_verified/unverified). This differentiates it from siblings like verify_signature or get_signed_fact by focusing on semantic claim verification rather than raw signature or fact lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes a clear use case: verifying an agent's claim against live signed data. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is specific enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate, though a mention of alternatives would be stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_signatureAInspectWITHDRAWN (2026-08-09). This tool performs no cryptographic signature verification and returns a non-success withdrawal notice. A hash comparison is not signature verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jws | No | JWS token to verify | |
| content_hash | No | Content hash to verify (sha256:...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not verify signatures, always returns a non-success withdrawal notice, and clarifies that hash comparison is not signature verification. This is fully transparent about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'WITHDRAWN (2026-08-09).' Every sentence adds critical information: the withdrawal status, the non-functioning behavior, and an important conceptual warning. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a withdrawn tool, the description is complete: it states the withdrawal, what it returns, and a key misconception. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement that it returns a non-success notice. Nothing else is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 2 parameters with descriptions, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by warning that hash comparison is not signature verification, which directly relates to the content_hash parameter and clarifies that even providing both parameters will not result in actual verification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: it performs no cryptographic signature verification and returns a non-success withdrawal notice. This is specific and distinguishes it from active sibling tools like verify_claim, which presumably does verify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says the tool is withdrawn and performs no verification, making it clear when NOT to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool for signature verification, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!