Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deusproof-mcp

deusproof-mcp

by Abracadabrastartup
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

seal_agent_card

Seal the exact bytes of an agent's A2A card to record what it claimed and when, with an RFC 3161 timestamp and Bitcoin anchor for verification.

Instructions

Seal what an agent's A2A card claims, and when. The register fetches https:///.well-known/agent-card.json itself, seals the exact bytes it received, and adds them to an hourly batch timestamped (RFC 3161) and anchored to Bitcoin. Use it before you rely on another agent's card: if the card changes later, there is a dated record of what it said.

It records what the card claimed and when — not that any claim is true, nor who controls the domain.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "seal_agent_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
requested_byNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses server-side fetching of the exact bytes, hourly batching, RFC 3161 timestamps and Bitcoin anchoring, and explicitly bounds the guarantee ('not that any claim is true, nor who controls the domain'). It omits failure behavior (unreachable/missing card) and any auth expectations, keeping it from a 5.

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 core action and mechanism, and the closing paragraph earns its place by scoping the trust claim. Slightly padded by the illustrative sentence about later card changes, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

The trust model and timing semantics are well covered, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the caller gets back — a receipt, certificate ID, sealed hash, or batch timestamp — and failure modes are unaddressed. Adequate for a non-trivial, stateful registration tool but not complete.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description names neither. The 'domain' parameter is only obliquely inferable from the https://<domain>/... URL template, and 'requested_by' is entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('seal ... an agent's A2A card') and explains the mechanism that distinguishes it from siblings: the register fetches /.well-known/agent-card.json itself and seals the exact bytes received. This clearly separates it from notarize_hash (which seals an arbitrary supplied hash) and agent_card_history (which presumably reads past records).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it before you rely on another agent's card.' It does not name an alternative or state when-not-to-use (e.g., when a card is already sealed, or when to prefer agent_card_history), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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