Skip to main content
Glama
ODATANO

@odatano/nightgate-mcp

Official
by ODATANO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

submit_vault_call

Builds, proves, signs, and submits a sponsored AttestationVault call, waits for it to land, and returns the on-chain verification check.

Instructions

Run any AttestationVault call in one go: build, prove and sign it here with the caller seed, a sponsor pays, and the tool waits until it landed. Same calls and params as build_sponsorable_transaction: the ZK claims over a hidden field (proveFieldPredicate, proveFieldEquality, proveFieldMembership), the claims across two documents (proveFieldsUnchangedExcept, proveFieldsDiffer), disclosure (grantDisclosure, revokeDisclosure), passports and anchoring. The witness from prepare_document_proof is used here and never sent. Returns { status, attesterId, contractAddress, txHash, transactionHash, timings, check }; check is the free verify call that shows the effect on-chain. A failed job says in next what to do. If the call was cut off or came back pending, run it again with the same arguments: it picks up the job it started and submits nothing new (the answer says deduplicated). A second, separate call with the same arguments needs a new idempotencyKey.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callYesWhich circuit to call
paramsYesThe call parameters, listed per call in build_sponsorable_transaction
docPairNoWITNESS { schema, openingA, openingB } for proveFieldsUnchangedExcept and proveFieldsDiffer
merkleProofNoWITNESS for the proveField* calls, as prepare_document_proof returns it for that field
idempotencyKeyNoDedupes retries of the same call
contractAddressNoAttestationVault address (64 hex); default the shared sandbox vault of the network (preprod, preview)
compiledArtifactRefNoVault lineage, default 'attestation-vault-32' (the sandbox vaults); 'attestation-vault' for a 16-slot vault

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses caller seed usage, sponsor-paid execution, waiting until the transaction lands, witness privacy, returned fields, on-chain verification via `check`, failed-job guidance, and deduplication semantics. This is unusually complete for a signing/execution 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 core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries relevant operational detail. The paragraph is dense and long, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity and there is little obvious filler.

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?

For a complex execution tool with no output schema, the description explains the return object fields, on-chain verification, retry behavior and witness handling. The main remaining dependency is that per-call `params` details live in build_sponsorable_transaction rather than being enumerated here, but the description explicitly routes the agent there.

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 useful meaning by grouping the call enum into ZK claims, cross-document claims, disclosure, passports and anchoring. It also clarifies that `params` follows build_sponsorable_transaction, that witness fields come from prepare_document_proof, and that idempotencyKey controls retry deduplication.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run any AttestationVault call end-to-end by building, proving and signing it here. It distinguishes this from build_sponsorable_transaction by emphasizing the one-go execution and from prepare_document_proof by clarifying that the witness is consumed here but never sent.

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?

It gives clear context for execution, witness handling and retry behavior, including when to reuse the same arguments and when a new idempotencyKey is needed. It names build_sponsorable_transaction as the source of the same calls and params, but it does not explicitly state when an agent should choose that sibling instead of this execution-oriented tool.

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