Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

EDNA — On-Device Human Sensing for AI

by space.openos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

edna_identity_verify

EDNA ID (production): verify a handle against the genesis handle commitment + live Chladni pattern vs account vault. Three consecutive 100% matches authenticate the session into the EDNA ID account (behavioral login); any miss resets the streak.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "edna_identity_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYes
sessionNoTest session id [a-zA-Z0-9_-]{1,64} — sensor bridge and AI client must use the SAME id. Omit to use the X-EDNA-Session header or the "default" session.
signalsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose an important rule: three consecutive 100% matches authenticate the session, and any miss resets the streak. However, it omits other key behavioral details such as permission requirements, side effects on the session/account, error behavior, and idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is compact and front-loads the core operation before the authentication rule. The two sentences are mostly efficient, though the dense domain jargon ('Chladni pattern', 'genesis handle commitment') may reduce immediate comprehension.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex authentication tool with a nested signals object, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage. The description explains the central streak rule but is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently, especially regarding signals, session semantics, and error or return behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It identifies 'handle' as the target of verification but says nothing about the required format or meaning, and it leaves the nested 'signals' object completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('verify a handle') and explains the mechanism ('genesis handle commitment + live Chladni pattern vs account vault') plus the outcome ('authenticate the session'). This makes the core purpose reasonably clear, but it does not name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as edna.id.verify_resume or edna.get_verification_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what verification leads to, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as verify_resume, edna_identity_create, or status/introspection tools, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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

All EDNA — On-Device Human Sensing for AI toolsInspect
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