attest-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: authorization, attestation, verification, certificate retrieval, anchor checking, and service status. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (attest_file, check_anchor, get_certificate_pdf, verify_certificate, verify_file), but 'authorize' is a bare verb and 'service_status' is noun_noun, introducing minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the core workflow without being excessive. The scope is well-defined for an attestation service.
Completeness4/5
The set covers authorization, attestation, verification, certificate retrieval, anchor checking, and service status. Missing update/delete for attestations, but those are atypical for immutable attestations.
Average 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 35 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It hints at read-only check ('check whether') but also mentions optional file save, which is a side effect. Does not disclose error behavior, return format, or authorization 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage note) but effective.
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?
Simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. Description covers core function but omits return behavior (expected boolean or object). Adequate but could explicitly state outcome when proof exists vs. not.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (hash as SHA-256 fingerprint, save_to as local file path). Description adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks for an OpenTimestamps proof for a fingerprint, using specific verb 'check' and resource 'fingerprint...proof'. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_certificate and verify_file which perform different verification tasks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., attest_file, verify_certificate). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool computes SHA-256 locally and verifies server-side, and that no file bytes are sent. However, it does not explain error handling, return values, or permissions needed, which are important for safe invocation.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the core action and input requirements. No redundant information, every sentence adds value. Ideal length for quick comprehension.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, matched hash, signature validity) to enable the agent to act on results. This is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome.
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 context that optional parameters (titolo, autore, anno, note) come from the certificate, which aids understanding. However, 50% of parameters lack schema descriptions, and the description does not fully compensate by explaining their purpose or format beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool computes SHA-256 of a local file and verifies it against a hash and HMAC signature, emphasizing that no file bytes are sent. This differentiates it from siblings like 'verify_certificate' but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'attest_file' and 'check_anchor'.
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 description implies usage when a file needs to be verified against a certificate, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'verify_certificate' or 'attest_file'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool confirms authenticity and integrity of declared data, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or what occurs upon failure. Some behavioral context is provided, but important aspects are missing.
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 sentences with no extraneous information. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose and exclusions but does not explain return values or error handling. It is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 43%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that metadata parameters are included in verification if present. However, it does not add detailed semantics for each parameter beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.
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 clearly states the specific action: verify the HMAC signature of a certificate's attestation and declared metadata. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool verify_file by noting that it does not check against a local file, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (to verify signature of attestation/data) and when not to (if file matching is needed, use verify_file). While not naming siblings explicitly, the context is clear and provides guidance on usage scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It accurately describes a read operation and specifies the output type ('traffic-light status'). However, it does not mention response format details or potential side effects, though none are expected for a status check.
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?
Single sentence, 15 words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. No extraneous information.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it does not explain what 'traffic-light status' means (red, yellow, green), which could be clarified. Context signals show no parameters, so completeness is adequate for a simple status tool.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description correctly omits parameter details, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'traffic-light status of the attestation service' listing specific components (worker, archive, signer, Bitcoin anchor). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_anchor' which focus on a single component.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for overall service status, but does not provide when-not-to-use or contrast with siblings like 'check_anchor'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavior: file is streamed and never sent, server timestamps and returns signed attestation. With no annotations, description covers privacy and output adequately, though missing details on error handling or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with main action and key constraints (streamed, credential needed). Every sentence adds value.
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?
Covers auth, privacy, output (signed attestation), and optional metadata. No output schema, but description sufficiently describes return. Complete for a file attestation tool.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining that optional metadata (titolo/autore/anno/note) is bound to the signature, going beyond schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states the tool computes SHA-256 fingerprint and attests it with timestamp and signed attestation. Distinguishes from siblings like 'verify_file' and 'authorize' by specifying the core action.
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?
Explicitly mentions prerequisite credential (run 'authorize' first or set IMGAUTH_API_KEY). Provides context on when to use, though does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool saves to a local file, specifies a default save path, and clarifies authentication requirements (no credential needed for hash-only mode). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., server state changes), error conditions (e.g., if attestation is stale or hash not found), or file overwrite behavior, leaving some gaps.
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 concise, consisting of exactly three sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the subsequent sentences clearly delineate the two usage modes. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it easy to parse and act upon.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the two primary use cases and provides necessary parameter context. It mentions the default file path and credential requirements. However, it does not specify the return value (is there a confirmation or path returned?) or error handling, which would be valuable for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100% for the two described parameters (hash and save_to) and one nested object (attestation), the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'attestation' must be the exact object returned by attest_file, and that the hash-only mode requires no credential. The description also provides a default value for save_to. This enhances the agent's ability to correctly use parameters.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a signed certificate PDF for an attested work and saves it to a local file. It distinguishes between two distinct use cases: minting a fresh PDF using an attestation object, and recovering an archived certificate using only a hash. This specificity, combined with differentiation from sibling tools like attest_file and verify_certificate, makes the purpose highly clear.
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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: 'Pass attestation right after attesting' for a new PDF, and 'Pass only hash to recover an already-archived certificate' with the note that no credential is needed. This makes it easy for an agent to decide which parameters to provide based on the scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description fully discloses behavior: device flow, polling pattern, token auto-save, 20 attestations for 24 hours. No hidden surprises.
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?
Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose, then step-by-step flow. Ideal length for quick consumption.
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?
No output schema, but description explains possible statuses and implication (token saved or expired). Covers the entire lifecycle. Siblings are unrelated, so no missing comparative context.
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 covers the single parameter with description, and the description adds context about polling and resuming. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but description adds value explaining usage flow.
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 clearly states the action ('start or continue device-flow authorization') and specifies the resource ('device-flow authorization'). It distinguishes from siblings which are unrelated (e.g., attest_file, verify_certificate).
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?
Explicit instructions: call with no arguments to begin, then poll with the same code a few seconds apart. Defines when to stop ('approved' or 'expired'). No ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![attest-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SPAZIO-GENESI/attest-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SPAZIO-GENESI/attest-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![attest-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SPAZIO-GENESI/attest-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SPAZIO-GENESI/attest-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/SPAZIO-GENESI/attest-mcp'

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