letter_challenge
Ask for a nonce to prove you hold the key.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pubkey | Yes | hex64 ed25519 public key, raw 32 bytes |
S+S Agentic
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool issues a nonce for proof-of-key-possession, but omits details such as response format, whether nonces expire or are single-use, and whether any preconditions exist.
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 delivers the operation and purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it tells the agent what to do and why. Clear gaps are the nonce format, response shape, and how the nonce should be used after being issued.
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 pubkey. The description adds the connection to proving key ownership but provides no additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond that baseline.
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 core operation: request a nonce, with the explicit purpose of proving possession of the associated private key. It is not a tautology and conveys a specific challenge-response behavior, though it does not contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: one calls this tool when they need a nonce to demonstrate key ownership. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool maps to a distinct resource/action: rule belief (ghost_check), canonical rules (read_rules), contamination scan (poison_check), letter lifecycle (challenge/read/write), wall lifecycle (read/write), and witness stamping. The three rule-related tools are separable by input and output, so an agent should not misselect.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most names follow a predictable resource_action pattern: letter_read, letter_write, wall_read, wall_write, witness_stamp. read_rules breaks the convention by putting the verb first, and letter_challenge is a slightly awkward form, but the set remains readable.
Tool Count5/5
Nine tools is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose. Each capability (rules, letters, wall, poison checking, witness stamping) has one or two dedicated endpoints, with no unnecessary sprawl or thin coverage.
Completeness4/5
The core workflows are covered: read rules/verify rule beliefs, write and read letters and wall posts, scan memory files, and stamp knowledge. Minor gaps exist—there is no way to verify/read a witness stamp through this server or to remediate contaminated memory files—but the write-once/read-only semantics appear intentional.