Skip to main content
Glama

agent-transaction-control

by network.flint

Verify Agent Authority

verify_agent_authority
Read-only

Use this tool when a merchant or API seller receives a signed verification record from an agent. It cryptographically verifies the compact JWS signature, checks expiration, and decodes the payload before payment or paid access execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jwsYesCompact JWS signed verification record.
jwks_urlNoOptional JWKS URL. Must be on the FLINT origin. Defaults to the FLINT production JWKS.
expected_partner_idYesPartner identifier expected in the authorization record.
expected_merchant_referenceYesCurrent transaction or resource reference expected in the authorization record.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_merchant_reference
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current transaction or resource reference expected in the authorization record.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_partner_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Partner identifier expected in the authorization record.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "jws"
-]New value: +[
+  "jws",
+  "expected_partner_id",
+  "expected_merchant_reference"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / jwks_url / description
      Previous value: -"Optional JWKS URL. Defaults to the FLINT production JWKS."New value: +"Optional JWKS URL. Must be on the FLINT origin. Defaults to the FLINT production JWKS."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: compact JWS signature verification, expiration checking, and payload decoding. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but it adds meaningful operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the usage trigger and then lists the core verification steps without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is read-only, has fully documented parameters, and the description supplies the business context and operational steps. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and no explicit statement of what the tool returns on success or failure, but enough is provided for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of expected_partner_id and expected_merchant_reference by referring to the decoded payload, but adds no new format or usage details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('verifies') and resource ('signed verification record from an agent'), and defines the trigger context: before payment or paid access execution. This clearly distinguishes the tool from issuer-oriented siblings like issue_authorization_record.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a merchant or API seller receives a signed verification record from an agent' and 'before payment or paid access execution'). It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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

All agent-transaction-control toolsInspect
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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: manifest creation, scope generation, passport lifecycle, authorization issuance/verification, reputation lookup, transaction scanning, and architecture validation. Overlapping terms like 'issue_agent_passport' and 'issue_authorization_record' are clearly differentiated by their objects and descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear verbs (create, generate, get, issue, lookup, run, update, validate, verify). Even where verbs are semantically close (issue vs generate), the pattern remains uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for an agent transaction control domain, covering identity, authorization, verification, trust, scanning, and compliance checks without redundancy. Each tool occupies a necessary niche in the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle coverage is strong: passports can be created, read, and updated, authorizations can be scoped, issued, and verified, and reputation/manifests are accessible. Notable minor gaps include no explicit revocation or outcome-submission tool, but agents can still complete the primary transaction flow.

Resources