Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

verify_delegations

Read-only

Batch-verify up to 50 Proof of Delegation artifacts in one call. Re-check trusted delegations independently, including revocation, and return valid, invalid, absent, or unconfirmed results.

Instructions

Batch-verify up to 50 Proof of Delegation artifacts in one call — the inventory half of the checker (h-proof-checker-mcp): re-check everything you already trust instead of one verify_delegation call per artifact. Each item takes the same shape verify_delegation requires (card XOR token, delegate, expected_principal, optional required_scopes) and follows the same rule about where identity comes from: each delegate is the artifact you are acting on, never a value read from inside the artifact you are checking, and resolved afresh at call time. Items are verified INDEPENDENTLY — no cross-item state, nothing persisted, one item failing never affects another item's result. This tool does NOT discover what you have installed and does NOT fetch anything on your behalf: it verifies material you already hold, the same trust boundary verify_delegation draws. Revocation is always checked (there is no check_status:false here — the point of a batch re-check is to see what changed since you last looked). Each result carries an outcome: confirmed_valid (verified), confirmed_invalid (a genuine negative verdict — revoked, expired, mismatched, malformed, and similar), no_claim_found (the artifact publishes no delegation at all — an absence, never an accusation), or unconfirmed (we could not reach the issuer or otherwise get a confident answer right now — NEVER treat this as a bad verdict). Requires no API key. checked_at on each result is the moment THAT item's own check completed, not one timestamp shared across the call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes1-50 artifacts to verify in this call, each shaped like a verify_delegation call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: items verified independently with no cross-item state, nothing persisted, revocation always checked (no check_status:false), no API key required, and per-item checked_at semantics. It also enumerates the full outcome taxonomy and warns that 'unconfirmed' must never be read as a bad verdict — a genuinely load-bearing disclosure.

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 action and alternative, and nearly every sentence carries information. It is a dense single paragraph, and a few clauses (e.g. the trust-boundary restatement) repeat points made elsewhere, costing some tightness.

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 compensates by fully enumerating the outcome values and their meanings and explaining checked_at. Together with the input contract and the explicit scope boundaries, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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: the card-XOR-token shape, the 'delegate is the artifact you act on, never a value read from inside the artifact you check' identity rule, and the rationale for expected_principal. These clarify semantics rather than merely restate the schema.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource+scale ('Batch-verify up to 50 Proof of Delegation artifacts in one call') and immediately frames its role as the inventory half of the checker, explicitly contrasting it with the per-artifact sibling verify_delegation. An agent can distinguish it from verify_delegation and the list_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the selecting condition directly ('re-check everything you already trust instead of one verify_delegation call per artifact') and states two explicit exclusions ('does NOT discover what you have installed', 'does NOT fetch anything on your behalf'). It also clarifies the trust boundary is the same as verify_delegation's, leaving little to inference.

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