mint-protocol

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct and clear purpose: register identity, attest work, rate attestations, recommend actors, discover actors, and verify trust profile. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'mint_<verb>' naming pattern with underscores, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers the essential operations for a trust/reputation protocol without being bloated or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
Covers registration, attestation, rating, recommending, discovery, and verification. Minor gaps: no update/delete for identities or ability to revoke attestations/ratings.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 34 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 25, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 the reward distribution (96% participants, 2% protocol, 2% creator), that the caller is the creator and funds upfront, and that it's on devnet. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but the behavioral traits are well-covered for a creation tool.
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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and provides essential context. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary repetition.
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 the complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, flow, and key behavioral aspects. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema. Minor omission: no mention of potential errors or prerequisites, but overall 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema. No additional insights into parameter usage are provided.
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 creates a stake-backed work cell on the FoundryNet devnet. It explains the purpose of a work cell and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mint_join_cell and mint_settle_cell by specifying that this tool is for creation.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions that the caller is the creator and funds the reward_pool upfront, it lacks guidance on prerequisites or direct comparison with siblings like mint_join_cell.
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 carries full burden. It details that the signer is the insurer, funds coverage into escrow, payout triggers under specific conditions (oracle attestation, threshold, duration), and escrow returns on expiry. This covers key behavioral traits without contradictions.
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?
The description is a single paragraph with three sentences: purpose, mechanism, and fallback. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly dense. Every sentence adds value, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description explains the full policy lifecycle (creation, trigger conditions, expiry). It covers all essential behavioral aspects, making it fully complete for the tool's context.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'insurer escrows coverage_amount') but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It meets the baseline.
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 'Create a parametric insurance policy on the FoundryNet devnet program,' specifying the verb (create), resource (parametric insurance policy), and context (devnet). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_settle_policy and mint_attest by focusing on creation.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool (to create a parametric policy) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names imply alternatives, but the description lacks explicit guidance for tool selection.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses an on-chain event emission and payout attestation, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Concise paragraph, no wasted words, front-loaded with key action. Well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Description covers two scenarios and outcome. Has output schema and good schema coverage. Lacks prerequisites or error conditions, but overall complete enough for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context for beneficiary (token account receives coverage) but not for policy_id. Marginal value beyond 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 tool triggers settlement of a parametric insurance policy, explaining the two outcomes (triggered vs expired). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_settle_cell by being specific to policy settlement.
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 implies when to use this tool (after policy is triggered or expired) and describes the outcome. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.
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?
Discloses that verification is free and ungated, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does not fully disclose other behaviors like idempotency or side effects. For a read-like tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about free usage is a concise addition. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.
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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the two primary use cases. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., actor registration) but overall is sufficient for agent understanding.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by grouping parameters into two use cases (actor reputation vs. attestation), which clarifies valid parameter combinations beyond the schema's anyOf structure.
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 either an actor's reputation or an attestation's on-chain anchoring, using specific resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_attest (creates attestations) and mint_register (registers actors). Explanation of free usage adds clarity.
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?
Implicitly guides use for verification tasks, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.
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 carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is safe (no auth, free) and describes the returned data (trust score, ratings, etc.). This is good but not exhaustive; for example, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (6 optional parameters, no required params, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, access, return fields. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides a high-level overview but does not elaborate on specific parameters beyond what the schema already offers.
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 discovers trusted actors on the MINT network, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (mint_attest, mint_rate, etc.) by focusing on discovery rather than attestation or rating.
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?
The description does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, it mentions that the tool is free and open to any agent, implying broad applicability. No alternatives are indicated, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
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, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it updates the recommended actor's trust score (mutation), returns recommendation_id, data_hash, and updated trust score, and imposes uniqueness constraints. However, it does not mention any destructive potential or required permissions.
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 very concise, using only a few sentences with the main action first, followed by key behaviors and constraints. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, constraints, and mutation behavior. With an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
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 the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds marginal value by reinforcing the score range and mentioning 'FREE', but does not deepen understanding 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 uses a clear specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('another actor'), and sets it apart from siblings like 'attest', 'discover', 'rate', 'register', 'verify' by focusing on endorsing a known actor with a score and context.
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?
The description states constraints (cannot recommend self, unique triple) and mentions the tool is free, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mint_rate' or 'mint_attest', which could have overlapping purposes.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses stake transfer, TrustScore account creation, state change to Active, and failure conditions. It mentions 'configured signer' but does not elaborate on authorization or gas costs. Still, it provides solid behavioral context.
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 two paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core action, and the second paragraph adds necessary detail. It is front-loaded and concise.
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 the complexity (multiple actions: transfer, account creation, state change) and a single parameter, the description covers the main effects and failure modes. It does not explain the return value, but an output schema exists. Missing mention of prerequisites beyond cell state, but overall adequate.
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 only parameter 'cell_id' is described adequately in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 joins an open work cell by locking stake, and distinguishes itself from siblings like mint_create_cell (creation) and mint_settle_cell (settlement). It uses specific verbs ('join', 'locking') and resource ('work cell'), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explains when to use (to join an open cell that is not full) and failure conditions (if full or active). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses idempotency, return of a mint_id, and that identity is never gated. It does not mention any destructive behavior, which is acceptable for a registration tool.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details. It is slightly verbose in the first paragraph but overall efficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value, idempotency, and prerequisites, and aligns with sibling tools.
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 baseline 3. The description adds context for the return value and idempotency but does not significantly enhance parameter meanings 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 'Register' and the resource 'any autonomous actor' with a persistent cryptographic identity. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Always call this before mint_attest for a new actor.'
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 provides context on when to use (before mint_attest) and notes idempotency and that it's free. It could explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling list and context are sufficient.
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, the description discloses free usage, the returned fields, and key constraints (self-rating prohibition, single rating per attestation). This provides good transparency, though side effects beyond trust score update are not detailed.
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 two sentences with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still mentions them. It covers purpose, constraints, and usage, making it complete for an 8-parameter tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., linking attestation_id to mint_attest). This meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 'rate' and resource 'attestation', and specifies the effect of updating trust scores. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_attest and mint_verify, which handle creation and verification.
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 implies usage after work completion and includes constraints (cannot rate self, once per rater). However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses reward percentages, state transitions (Active → Evaluating), and side effects (trust score bumps). However, it does not mention reversibility or potential failures.
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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers all needed context: workflow, conditional logic, and effects. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context: `scores` is for recording if cell is Active, `participants` used to rebuild accounts. This adds value 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 tool's purpose: 'Trigger settlement of a work cell.' It specifies the reward distribution (96% participants, 2% protocol, 2% creator) and actions like returning stakes and bumping trust scores. This distinguishes it from siblings like mint_settle_policy.
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 provides explicit guidance: when to include `scores` (if cell is Active) and when to omit (if already evaluated). It also states the signer must be the cell's creator. It lacks direct comparison to other settlement tools but is clear on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: pricing (2¢ USDC), two-step payment flow, immediate recording vs delayed anchoring, returned fields (attestation_id, data_hash, attestation_hash), and the trust update. No contradictions or omissions.
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?
The description is relatively long but well-structured: purpose, pricing, payment flow, success output, anchoring explanation, and verification reference. Each sentence adds necessary information. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (payment, anchoring, verification) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: initialization, payment handling, success response, anchor process, and how to verify later. No gaps for an AI agent.
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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are good. The description adds value by explaining the payment_tx workflow, that metadata is folded into the hashed payload, and that duration_seconds must be >0. This exceeds the baseline of 3.
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's purpose: 'Attest a completed unit of work for a registered actor' and distinguishes it from sibling tool `mint_verify` which retrieves on-chain proofs. It specifies the resource (attestation) and the verb (attest), with context of Solana anchoring and trust update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: first call without payment_tx, handle 402 response, make payment, then call with payment_tx. Also advises using `mint_verify` for on-chain proof, and explains when to use this tool vs alternatives.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mint-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FoundryNet/mint-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FoundryNet/mint-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mint-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FoundryNet/mint-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FoundryNet/mint-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/FoundryNet/mint-mcp'

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