Skip to main content
Glama

Trusteed Agentic Commerce

by xyz.trusteed
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_trust_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a trust receipt's signature, revocation and chain coverage from inside this session (v1.0 receipts only; other profiles answer unsupported_profile, not invalid). LIMIT: the issuer verifies its own receipt (verified_by: issuer, independent: false), so this is a consistency check, not proof to a third party; independent_verification tells you how to verify it yourself against the public JWKS. Pass the jws from get_trust_receipt. Checkout guide: read the MCP resource trusteed://guides/checkout.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jwsYesThe compact JWS of the receipt (the `jws` field returned by get_trust_receipt).
agent_keyNoSandbox credential from `create_sandbox_key`. Use this when your client cannot set an `Authorization: Bearer` header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "properties": {
-    "chain_covered": {
-      "type": [
-        "boolean",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "independent": {
-      "const": false,
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "independent_verification": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "key_id": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "reason": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "revoked": {
-      "type": [
-        "boolean",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "signature_valid": {
-      "type": [
-        "boolean",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "enum": [
-        "verified",
-        "invalid",
-        "unsupported_profile",
-        "not_this_store"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "verified_by": {
-      "const": "issuer",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "status",
-    "signature_valid",
-    "key_id",
-    "revoked",
-    "chain_covered",
-    "verified_by",
-    "independent",
-    "independent_verification"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: the issuer self-verification limitation (verified_by: issuer, independent: false) and the unsupported_profile response for non-v1.0 receipts. Does not describe response shape, but that is secondary.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then a LIMIT caveat, then input sourcing and a guide pointer. Information-dense and largely free of waste, though the parentheses and multiple embedded clauses make it slightly dense.

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?

Given no output schema, the description omits return-value detail, but it does disclose the key limitation and the non-v1.0 behavior, which are the main things an agent needs. Could be more complete on what a successful verification returns, but covers the essentials.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (jws, agent_key) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces which jws to supply but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (trust receipt's signature, revocation, chain coverage) with a clear scoping constraint (v1.0 receipts only, other profiles answer unsupported_profile). This is well distinguished from get_trust_receipt, which retrieves rather than verifies.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to pass the jws from get_trust_receipt, warns that this is a consistency check not third-party proof, and points to independent_verification and trusteed://guides/checkout for alternatives. Clear when/when-not guidance.

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

All Trusteed Agentic Commerce 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