Skip to main content
Glama
Syronius

Cryptair MCP Server

by Syronius

initiate_attestation

Initiate a two-party attestation to verify both sides have the same document. Get a shareable URL for the counterparty to confirm, creating an audit-grade record on Hedera.

Instructions

Start a TWO-PARTY attestation. Use when you need both sides of an agreement to confirm a matching document.

USE WHEN you want to:

  • Get a counterparty (another agent or a human) to formally acknowledge receipt of a contract, proposal, or deliverable

  • Lock in a mutual agreement that's only valid if both sides see the same content

  • Create an audit-grade record that two parties agreed on this exact document

How it works:

  1. You initiate with a document hash. Cryptair returns a shareable URL.

  2. You send the URL to your counterparty (out of band — email, Slack, etc.).

  3. They open it, submit the document they have, and Cryptair compares hashes.

  4. If hashes match: certified on Hedera. If not: tamper recorded on Hedera.

  5. The counterparty does NOT need a Cryptair account. They can complete for free.

Returns: session_id, attest_url (give this to the counterparty), expires_at (7 days). Poll with check_attestation to see when the counterparty completes.

Requires a Cryptair API key. Call register_agent first if you don't have one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metadataNoOptional. Arbitrary JSON object stored with the session (e.g., contract type, reference IDs).
document_hashYes64-character lowercase hex SHA-256 of the document. Hash locally first; do not send the file content.
counterparty_nameYesHuman-readable name of the counterparty (e.g., 'Acme Corp', 'jane@example.com'). Shown on the certificate. Max 256 chars.
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It explains the step-by-step workflow, the fact that the counterparty does not need an account, the return values, the 7-day expiry, and the requirement for a Cryptair API key. This is comprehensive.

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 well-organized: a one-line summary, bulleted use cases, numbered workflow steps, return value listing, and a note on API key. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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, the description explains return values and references polling via check_attestation. It covers prerequisites and the flow adequately. Minor omission: no mention of what happens on timeout or failure, but overall complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by instructing to hash locally and not send file content for document_hash, and explaining counterparty_name is shown on the certificate. Metadata is mentioned as optional. The added context justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Start a TWO-PARTY attestation' and explains the tool's specific role in the workflow. It distinguishes from siblings like certify_document and check_attestation by detailing the initiation process and referencing polling via check_attestation.

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 lists explicit use cases ('Get a counterparty to formally acknowledge receipt', 'Lock in a mutual agreement') and describes the workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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/Syronius/cryptair-mcp-server'

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