Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proofcore-mcp

proofcore-mcp

Official
by ProofCore-Protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

verify_content

Verify sealed deals by validating hash match and Ed25519 signature to confirm content authenticity and integrity.

Instructions

Programmatically verify a sealed deal (Agent-to-Agent). Checks hash match and Ed25519 signature.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "deal_id": "<deal_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "verify_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
deal_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the core behavioral mechanism: hash match and Ed25519 signature verification. It does not cover failure behavior or side effects, but the output schema likely handles return details.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides the key verification details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and mechanism. However, it lacks explicit parameter meanings and usage context, leaving noticeable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain deal_id or content beyond their self-evident names. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('verify'), identifies the resource ('a sealed deal'), and states the exact mechanism ('Checks hash match and Ed25519 signature'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as seal_content and get_proof_status.

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 phrase 'verify a sealed deal' implies the use case, and 'Agent-to-Agent' adds context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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