Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rubric Protocol MCP Server

Rubric Protocol MCP Server

by 0xsims
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_proof

Generate a ZK Merkle inclusion proof for an attestation; requires an API key. Use it to verify AI decisions against on-chain anchors.

Instructions

Generate ZK Merkle inclusion proof (Noir/Barretenberg) for an attestation. Requires API key.

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": {
      "attestation_id": "<attestation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attestation_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.4

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the API key requirement. It says nothing about whether proof generation is expensive or slow, whether it has side effects or is pure computation, whether output is deterministic, or what the caller gets back.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the auth constraint trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

A simple one-parameter tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the returned proof and any failure modes (unknown attestation, missing key). It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase "for an attestation" weakly maps attestation_id to an existing attestation but adds no format, source, or validity constraints.

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?

Names a specific verb (Generate) and resource (ZK Merkle inclusion proof for an attestation), and adds the underlying stack (Noir/Barretenberg), which is genuinely informative. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'verify', which is the most likely confusion point for an agent choosing between proving and verifying.

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 only guidance given is a prerequisite ("Requires API key"), not usage direction. There is no statement of when to call this versus 'verify', whether the attestation must already exist, or when proof generation is unnecessary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools