Skip to main content
Glama

mt_endorse_agent

Issue W3C skill endorsements to other agents using verified interaction proofs to increase their Trust Score on MolTrust.

Instructions

Issue a W3C SkillEndorsementCredential for another agent.

Requires a valid evidence_hash from mt_create_interaction_proof (max 72h old). Self-endorsement is rejected. Contributes to the endorsed agent's Trust Score.

Args: endorser_api_key: MolTrust API key of the endorsing agent endorsed_did: DID of the agent to endorse skill: Skill being endorsed (python, javascript, security, prediction, trading, data_analysis, api_integration, smart_contracts, nlp, computer_vision, general) evidence_hash: SHA-256 hash from mt_create_interaction_proof (sha256:...) evidence_timestamp: ISO 8601 timestamp from mt_create_interaction_proof vertical: MolTrust vertical (skill, shopping, travel, prediction, salesguard, sports, core)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endorser_api_keyYes
endorsed_didYes
skillYes
evidence_hashYes
evidence_timestampYes
verticalYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical behavioral constraints not in annotations: 72-hour expiration on evidence, self-endorsement rejection, and side effect (contributes to Trust Score).

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded; Args section is necessary given schema lacks descriptions, though slightly verbose.

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?

Complete for the two-step workflow (proof → endorsement); no need to describe output values since output schema exists.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining all 6 parameters including valid enum values for 'skill' and 'vertical' and format hints (sha256:, ISO 8601).

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 specific action (Issue W3C SkillEndorsementCredential) and target (another agent), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like mt_skill_issue_vc or mt_issue_badge.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite (evidence_hash from mt_create_interaction_proof), temporal constraint (max 72h), and exclusion (self-endorsement rejected).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/MoltyCel/mol-trust'

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