Skip to main content
Glama

Cybercentry Verification

by uk.co.cybercentry

Media Content Verification

media_content_verification

Check whether an image or video is authentic and where it came from: C2PA content credentials, provenance and metadata extraction, with an avatar and logo impersonation check. Detect AI-generated or tampered media before trusting it. Costs $1.00 per call, paid in USDC over x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
image_uriYesAvatar/logo image URI: HTTPS URL or IPFS path
media_file_pathYesURL or path to the media file to verify
extract_metadataNoExtract file metadata (default: true)
subscription_tokenNoOptional Cybercentry subscription token. Uses your plan quota instead of paying per call.
verify_authenticityNoVerify content authenticity / C2PA provenance (default: true)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the $1.00 per-call cost and payment method (USDC over x402), which is important behavioral context, but it does not detail authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether any state is mutated. Verification is implied read-only.

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?

Three sentences: features, application, cost. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the core purpose is in the first line.

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?

With no output schema, the description doesn't clarify what the returned result looks like (e.g., a confidence score, a report, or a boolean). It also omits details on edge cases like unsupported formats. Still, it covers the core capabilities and pricing sufficiently for many use cases.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context around C2PA and impersonation check, but does not explain each parameter beyond the schema. Defaults for booleans are in 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?

Description opens with an action verb 'Check' and specifies the resource 'image or video', then enumerates distinct capabilities (C2PA credentials, provenance/metadata, avatar/logo impersonation). This clearly differentiates it from sibling token/wallet verification 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 phrase 'before trusting it' gives clear context for when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools for other verification needs.

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

All Cybercentry Verification 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct domains (token, media, AI agent, wallet, web app, code), but `base_token_verification` and `ethereum_token_verification` are closely related and could be confused despite chain-specific descriptions. The informational tools (`list_services`, `recent_exploits`) are clearly separate.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are lowercase snake_case, with the majority following a `[domain]_verification` pattern. The exceptions (`cyber_security_consultant`, `list_services`, `recent_exploits`) are still clear but deviate from the dominant suffix convention.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is a well-scoped size for a multi-domain verification service. Each tool represents a distinct service category, and the count feels appropriately comprehensive without being bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers major verification needs across tokens, code, media, AI agents, wallets, web apps, private data, and quantum-safe encryption. The addition of `cyber_security_consultant`, `list_services`, and `recent_exploits` provides context and support, leaving no obvious dead ends for typical use cases.

Resources