CCS Verifier MCP Server

verify_receipt

Check a CCS receipt’s integrity and Ed25519 signature to confirm authenticity and detect tampering, with no API keys or rate limits.

Instructions

Verify a CCS (Cryptographic Commitment Scheme) receipt. Free and unlimited.

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": {
      "receipt": "<receipt>"
    },
    "name": "verify_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	Yes	CCS receipt to verify

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses cost/rate behavior ("free and unlimited") but not what verification actually checks (signature against public_key, commitments, prompt/response hashes) or how failure is surfaced. For a cryptographic verification tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The trailing cost note is brief and does add information, though it is the weaker half of the definition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a ten-field nested receipt object, the description should explain what a verification result looks like (boolean, valid/invalid, error on bad signature). None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the response shape from the definition alone.

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% at the top level, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the nested receipt object — which fields are mandatory for verification, or whether extra fields like commitments and hashes are checked — beyond what the schema already declares.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Verify a CCS receipt") and even expands the acronym, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings generate_test_receipt or get_verifier_info, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit fact that this checks a receipt. Nothing tells an agent to call generate_test_receipt first to obtain a receipt, or to use get_verifier_info for scheme details. "Free and unlimited" is a cost note, not usage routing.

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

Deploy Server