Skip to main content
Glama
Nuraveda

@qed-proof/mcp

by Nuraveda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Verify a receipt or change entry offline

verify_receipt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a QED Proof receipt or change entry independently of QED Proof servers by validating schema, signing-key window, Ed25519 signature, claim digest, Merkle inclusion proof, and optional policy.

Instructions

Checks a receipt or a change entry independently of QED Proof's servers, as the reference checker in the QED Proof spec does: the JSON Schema, integer-only encoding, the signing key's validity window, the Ed25519 signature, the claim digest (receipts only; a change entry has no claim) and the Merkle log inclusion proof. A change entry is signed under its own domain and the report carries entry_kind "change" with a null verdict. If the body carries a policy, pass the pipeline document to check it (its digest, id and version); without it the policy check is reported as not_checked. It does not read the blockchain, so the on-chain anchor is reported as not checked and the achieved trust level is at most 1. Pass receipt_json (a receipt or a change entry) for a fully offline check, or receipt_id to fetch the receipt first. The public keys come from keys_json or, when omitted, from the issuer's published poaw-keys.json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pipelineNoThe pipeline document, to check the receipt's policy against (its id, version and digest). Omit it and the policy check is reported as not_checked.
keys_jsonNoThe issuer's poaw-keys.json as raw JSON text.
receipt_idNoA receipt_id to fetch, when receipt_json isn't given.
receipt_jsonNoThe receipt as raw JSON text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / pipeline
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "The pipeline document, to check the receipt's policy against (its id, version and digest). Omit it and the policy check is reported as not_checked.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing what the checker does and does not do: no blockchain read, on-chain anchor reported as not checked, achieved trust level at most 1, change entries signed under their own domain with null verdict, and keys sourced from keys_json or the issuer's published poaw-keys.json. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then proceeds through the checklist and the parameter routing. The long enumerated sentence is dense but every clause carries a distinct behavioral fact; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly characterizes the report (entry_kind "change", null verdict, not_checked results, capped trust level), and it covers the offline-vs-fetch input paths and the key source. An agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning over the schema: the pipeline document here is the policy-check input, keys_json falls back to poaw-keys.json when omitted, and receipt_json may be either a receipt or a change entry. It adds value rather than restating field text.

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 a specific verb (verify/check) and a specific resource (a receipt or change entry), plus the crucial scope distinction 'independently of QED Proof's servers'. An agent can immediately tell this apart from get_receipt or get_verdict, which are server-side lookups.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: pass receipt_json for a fully offline check, or receipt_id to fetch the receipt first, and says the policy check is skipped (not_checked) when no pipeline is supplied. It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling tools (e.g. use get_receipt instead when you only want the stored record), so 4 rather than 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools