Skip to main content
Glama

aio

by org.aioq

Verify an AIO registry record (score report or legacy certificate)

verify_certification
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify an AIO registry record by id. Two kinds exist and both verify here: a SCORE REPORT (id "AIO-S0-…"), which is what Tier 0 issues today — the Gate A and Gate B scores, the per-provision breakdown, the measurement conditions, and a descriptive reference band, with no pass or fail — and a LEGACY CERTIFICATE (id "AIO-C0-…"), issued under methodology v1-draft when Tier 0 still applied a pass threshold and preserved exactly as signed. Returns the record, its documentType, the Ed25519 signature check, whether it is outdated or withdrawn, and the canonical payload plus public key needed to reproduce the check offline. An id that is not in the registry was not issued by AIO. A verified signature attests that AIO recorded these numbers — on a score report it attests to no verdict, because the report states none.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
certIdYesRecord id — AIO-S0-XXXXXXXX (score report) or AIO-C0-XXXXXXXX (legacy certificate).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds rich behavioral context: return fields (record, documentType, Ed25519 signature check, outdated/withdrawn status, payload + public key), what a verified signature means, and what it does not mean for score reports. No contradiction.

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?

The description is concise but information-dense, with no filler. It flows logically from general purpose, to record types, to return fields, to interpretation. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return components and the meaning of verification. It also explains the two record types and the offline reproducibility scenario, leaving no significant gap for a read-only verification tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the ID format. The description adds semantic value by explaining that both ID patterns verify here, and that an id not found in the registry was not issued by AIO, which is useful interpretive guidance 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Verify an AIO registry record by id.' It further distinguishes two record types (score report vs legacy certificate) and explicitly notes that both are handled here, which sets it apart from sibling retrieval tools.

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 clearly defines the scope: verification of registry records only, and clarifies that non-registry ids were not issued by AIO. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes it obvious when to use this tool versus simply retrieving items.

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

All aio 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching items vs. distributions, listing vs. fetching specific entities, and distinct submission endpoints for benchmark, eval, and RFC comments. Even the two 'get items' tools (bench vs. eval) are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are grouped by action type (get_, list_, submit_, start_, register_, verify_, search_), and the patterns are predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose. The breadth of the domain (papers, RFCs, standards packs, benchmarks, evaluation, certification, vocabulary, search) justifies the count, and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major workflows: listing and fetching resources, starting and submitting evaluation attempts, registering and verifying certifications, and submitting benchmark/RFC responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to cancel an evaluation attempt or list a specific benchmark run by id, but these are edge cases and the core lifecycle is well-covered.

Resources