Skip to main content
Glama
Burakfenerci5

actionproof

by Burakfenerci5
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: attest_action creates a receipt, get_identity provides the signer's DID, and verify_receipt validates receipts. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: attest_action, get_identity, verify_receipt.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose. A few additional tools (e.g., list_receipts) could be useful but are not necessary.

    Completeness5/5

    The core workflow of attestation is fully covered: identity retrieval, action attestation, and receipt verification. No obvious gaps in the domain.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification is offline, returns signature validity and signing agent, and optionally checks params/result against hashes. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but main behavioral traits are clear.

    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?

    Description is two concise sentences. First sentence states core purpose and mode (offline), second explains outputs and optional feature. No redundant information.

    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?

    Tool is simple but lacks output schema. Description explains return of validity and agent key, but does not specify return format or error responses. Context about optional checks is provided, but completeness is moderate given no output schema.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context that optional parameters allow re-checking against receipt hashes, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

    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 clearly states the tool verifies a signed ActionProof receipt offline, returning signature validity and signing agent. Title and description align, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools attest_action (which produces receipts) and get_identity (which gets identity).

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    Description implies usage by stating it verifies receipts offline, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tool names are provided but no guidance on when to choose verify_receipt.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return value and signing context but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, as a read-only operation, the description is minimally adequate.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds relevant context about identity usage.

    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 could be more explicit about the format of the did:key. However, for a simple identity retrieval tool with clear context from siblings, it is sufficiently complete.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to provide parameter details. The title and description effectively communicate the tool's simplicity.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool returns the server's stable agent identity (did:key). It also connects to sibling tools by noting that receipts from attest_action are signed by this identity, distinguishing the tool's purpose.

    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 description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to obtain the identity for verifying signatures), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison with sibling tools.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the tamper-evident nature, the return of a SignedReceipt, and offline verifiability. However, it does not mention required permissions, side effects, or state changes.

    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 sentences deliver all essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, usage timing, and output.

    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?

    For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, when to use, and what is returned. It could elaborate on the role of optional parameters, but the schema already handles that.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that 'params' and 'result' are stored only as hashes for privacy, and provides examples like 'email.send'. This goes beyond the 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?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'signed receipt', with concrete examples of actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'get_identity' and 'verify_receipt' by describing a unique action recording purpose.

    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 description explicitly instructs 'Call it right after you perform the action', providing scenario examples. While it does not name exclusions or alternatives, the context for use is clear and actionable.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

actionproof MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

actionproof MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Burakfenerci5/actionproof'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server