Request a notarisation quote for a work artifact. Returns the cost ($0.01 USDC or NEAR equivalent), a quote_id valid for 600 seconds, the sink account to send payment to, and the PDR schema version. Step 1 of the notarisation flow: quote -> pay -> notarize -> verify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_hash | No | ||
| pdr_version | No | 2.3 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / work_hash / defaultAdded value: +""Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "work_hash"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key stateful facts: it returns a quote_id that is 'valid for 600 seconds,' the sink account, cost, and PDR schema version, while the flow sequence implies no payment or notarization happens at this step. It does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior, but the main contract is transparent.
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 only three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then the return values, then the flow placement. Every sentence adds useful information.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, the description covers the important operational context: purpose, payment details, quote expiry, and flow order. The main gap is explicit parameter guidance, but the overall tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives semantic hints by mentioning a 'work artifact' (mapping to work_hash) and 'PDR schema version' (mapping to pdr_version), but it never explicitly explains the hash format, the optionality/defaults of the two parameters, or that pdr_version selects the schema version used. This is adequate but not complete.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Request a notarisation quote for a work artifact') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by placing it as 'Step 1 of the notarisation flow: quote -> pay -> notarize -> verify.' This clearly separates it from notary_notarize, notary_notarize_paid, and notary_verify, and the mention of cost/payment separates it from notary_free.
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 explicit flow 'quote -> pay -> notarize -> verify' tells an agent that this tool is the entry point and should precede the pay/notarize/verify siblings. It does not name alternatives like notary_free or state conditions for when not to use the tool, so it falls 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: free notarization, paid NEAR notarization, quote generation, verification, and a USDC discovery tool that is explicitly marked as non-callable. There is no ambiguity between the tools.
All tools follow a consistent 'notary_' prefix with descriptive lowercase verbs (free, notarize, notarize_paid, quote, verify). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a notarization service. It covers the essential steps (free, quote, paid notarize, verify) without unnecessary bloat.
The toolset covers the core workflow: free PDR creation, paid NEAR notarization, and verification. However, the USDC-paid notarization tool is marked as discovery-only and cannot be used via MCP, leaving a minor gap in the paid options.