CCS Verifier MCP Server

generate_test_receipt

Create a signed test CCS receipt for development or testing using an Ed25519 private key and optional model ID.

Instructions

Generate a test CCS receipt for development/testing (requires private 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": {
      "private_key": "<private_key>"
    },
    "name": "generate_test_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model_id`	No	Model identifier for test receipt
`private_key`	Yes	Ed25519 private key (hex-encoded, 64 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is for testing and requires a private key, but says nothing about side effects, key handling, whether a receipt is stored, or what the generated output looks like.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical prerequisite is compact and essential.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain the generated result and behavioral implications. It leaves the return value, side effects, and private-key handling unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for a tool that consumes a private key.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both model_id and private_key are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the private_key requirement and does not add format or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Generate a test CCS receipt," and scopes it to "development/testing." It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as verify_receipt or get_verifier_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 "for development/testing" gives clear usage context, and "(requires private key)" states a prerequisite. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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

Deploy Server