Skip to main content
Glama

getSignature

Retrieve signature verification details for IPFS content identifiers to authenticate and validate data integrity on public or private networks.

Instructions

Get signature details for a specific CID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoWhether the file is on public or private IPFSpublic
cidYesThe CID to get the signature for

Implementation Reference

  • Complete implementation of the getSignature tool that retrieves signature details for a specific CID from Pinata IPFS. Includes schema definition (network and cid parameters) and the async handler that makes a GET request to the Pinata API and returns the signature data.
    server.tool(
      "getSignature",
      "Get signature details for a specific CID",
      {
        network: z
          .enum(["public", "private"])
          .default("public")
          .describe("Whether the file is on public or private IPFS"),
        cid: z.string().describe("The CID to get the signature for"),
      },
      async ({ network, cid }) => {
        try {
          const url = `https://api.pinata.cloud/v3/files/${network}/signature/${cid}`;
    
          const response = await fetch(url, {
            method: "GET",
            headers: getHeaders(),
          });
    
          if (!response.ok) {
            throw new Error(
              `Failed to get signature: ${response.status} ${response.statusText}`
            );
          }
    
          const data = await response.json();
          return successResponse(data);
        } catch (error) {
          return errorResponse(error);
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'signature details' entail (e.g., format, included fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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, direct sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'signature details' include (e.g., metadata, status, format), which is crucial for understanding the tool's output. For a retrieval tool with potential behavioral nuances, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'a specific CID' but doesn't elaborate on CID format or the 'network' parameter's implications. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('signature details for a specific CID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFileById' or 'getPaymentInstruction', which also retrieve details for specific identifiers, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving signature metadata versus other CID-related operations like 'addSignature' or 'deleteSignature', leaving usage context implied but not explicit.

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/PinataCloud/pinata-mcp'

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