Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sigmodx-mcp

sigmodx-mcp

by Sigmodx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sigmodx_verify_attestation

Verify a Sigmodx attestation by providing a verification string, returning the record and confirming cryptographic hash integrity.

Instructions

Verify a Sigmodx attestation using a verification string. Returns the attestation record and confirms the cryptographic hash is intact. No authentication required.

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": {
      "verification_string": "<verification_string>"
    },
    "name": "sigmodx_verify_attestation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verification_stringYesVerification string e.g. SIGMODX-INVOICE-6DFC-D331...

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions no authentication and confirms hash integrity, but does not specify whether it is read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. Acceptable for a simple verification but could be more thorough.

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: first states purpose, second provides key detail. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Describes purpose, return type, authentication requirement. For a one-parameter tool without output schema, this is nearly complete. However, missing details on error responses or record format, so not a 5.

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?

Verification_string is the only parameter, fully described in schema. Description provides an example, adding marginal value. With 100% coverage, baseline 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?

Clearly states the action 'verify' and resource 'Sigmodx attestation' using a verification string, and mentions returning the record. Distinguishable from sibling tools like logging or reliability checks.

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 vs alternatives. Only mentions 'No authentication required' which is a minor usage hint. Could be improved by contrasting with other verification or reliability tools.

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