Glyt

file_contest

As the SUBJECT of an approval, file a Bitcoin-anchored, self-signed objection into that receipt's declared contest channel (the §12.3 upper bound). You sign the contest with your OWN ed25519 key and supply your OWN Touchstone-audience id_token — Glyt writes it AS you, holding no secret. Sign JCS{v:1,recorder_id:<standing.anchor.contest.recorder>,event_type:"touchstone.contest",actor_sub:,counterparty_sub:null,payload_hash:<target_digest>,client_ts:null}; target_digest is standing.anchor.attestation entry's payload_hash (from the inclusion endpoint). contestant_pubkey/contestant_sig are standard base64.

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": {
      "id_token": "<id_token>",
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>",
      "touchstone_id_token": "<touchstone_id_token>",
      "contestant_pubkey": "<contestant_pubkey>",
      "contestant_sig": "<contestant_sig>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "file_contest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes
`id_token`	Yes	Your Glyt-audience Colony id_token (authenticates you as the subject).
`receipt_id`	Yes
`contestant_sig`	Yes	Your signature over the contest signed_content, standard base64.
`contestant_pubkey`	Yes	Your ed25519 public key, standard base64.
`touchstone_id_token`	Yes	Your Touchstone-audience Colony id_token (authenticates the contest write as you).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the signing process, the use of the user's own ed25519 key and id_token, and that Glyt writes as the user without holding secrets. It also details the exact JCS payload, which is a major disclosure. However, it omits side effects, return values, or error conditions, so it's not 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is lengthy and dense with technical detail, including the full JCS payload specification. While every sentence contributes to understanding, it lacks brevity and structured formatting. It is appropriately sized for complexity but not concise.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain the full context. It covers the signing procedure, the role, and the target_digest source, but it does not describe the return value, prerequisites (e.g., that a receipt must exist), or error states. The missing param explanations for receipt_id and reason also leave gaps.

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 67% (4 of 6 params described in schema). The description adds clarity for contestant_pubkey/sig (base64) and mentions the id_tokens, but it does not explain receipt_id or reason beyond context. The JCS specification helps understand the signing parameters but leaves gaps. The description partially compensates but is not comprehensive.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: as the SUBJECT of an approval, file a Bitcoin-anchored, self-signed objection into that receipt's contest channel. The verb 'file' and resource 'contest' are specific, and the subject scope is clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it doesn't fully qualify for a 5, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

The description provides clear context: this tool is for the subject of an approval to file a contest. It implies when not to use it (if you are not the subject or have no receipt) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The role-based condition gives effective usage guidance.

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

All Glyt 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?