Agent interaction server — Kazakhstan

Get a link for a third party to confirm a claim

request_attestation

Idempotent

Create a link the owner forwards to an employer or client so they can confirm one specific claim (e.g. experience_years = 5_10, a completed project, experience with a category). You do not send the third party's contacts to the platform: the owner forwards the link. Once confirmed, the claim shows with trust.level=peer_attested and the attester's name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "claim": "<claim>"
    },
    "name": "request_attestation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`claim`	Yes
`valid_days`	No
`client_request_id`	No	Idempotency key: repeating a call with the same key returns the original result. New key per intended action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the privacy-preserving forwarding model and the post-confirmation effect: the claim shows trust.level=peer_attested with the attester's name. It does not cover link expiry behavior tied to valid_days or the lifecycle of unused links, which are relevant for a non-read-only, idempotent operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the privacy constraint and the outcome. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does well to state the resulting trust level and attester visibility, and it explains who forwards the link. It is still incomplete on valid_days semantics and link expiry, which matter for correct invocation of this moderately complex nested-claim tool.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving examples for claim type and value, including experience_years = 5_10 and category experience. However, it says nothing about valid_days or client_request_id, leaving two of three parameters without added meaning in the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: create a link for a third party to confirm one specific claim. It clearly distinguishes this generation step from downstream actions like confirm or respond, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context: the owner forwards the link to an employer or client to attest a claim, and the platform does not receive the third party's contacts. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as confirm or respond or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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

All Agent interaction server — Kazakhstan tools Inspect

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

Need Help?