Skip to main content
Glama

verify-message

Verify digital signatures to confirm message authenticity and sender identity using address, message, and signature data.

Instructions

Verify that a message was signed by the provided address

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
messageYes
signatureYes

Implementation Reference

  • The execute handler that performs the message verification using wagmi's verifyMessage function with the provided address, message, and signature.
    execute: async (args) => {
      const address = args.address as Address
      const message = args.message
      const signature = args.signature as `0x${string}`
      const result = await verifyMessage(wagmiConfig, {
        address,
        message,
        signature,
      })
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: result.toString(),
          },
        ],
      }
    },
  • Zod schema for the tool's input parameters: address (string), message (string), signature (string).
    parameters: z.object({
      address: z.string(),
      message: z.string(),
      signature: z.string(),
    }),
  • The server.addTool call that registers the "verify-message" tool including its name, description, parameters schema, and execute handler.
    server.addTool({
      name: "verify-message",
      description: "Verify that a message was signed by the provided address",
      parameters: z.object({
        address: z.string(),
        message: z.string(),
        signature: z.string(),
      }),
      execute: async (args) => {
        const address = args.address as Address
        const message = args.message
        const signature = args.signature as `0x${string}`
        const result = await verifyMessage(wagmiConfig, {
          address,
          message,
          signature,
        })
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: result.toString(),
            },
          ],
        }
      },
    });
  • Helper function to register the verify-message tool on the FastMCP server.
    export function registerVerifyMessageTools(server: FastMCP): void {
      server.addTool({
        name: "verify-message",
        description: "Verify that a message was signed by the provided address",
        parameters: z.object({
          address: z.string(),
          message: z.string(),
          signature: z.string(),
        }),
        execute: async (args) => {
          const address = args.address as Address
          const message = args.message
          const signature = args.signature as `0x${string}`
          const result = await verifyMessage(wagmiConfig, {
            address,
            message,
            signature,
          })
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: result.toString(),
              },
            ],
          }
        },
      });
    };
  • Top-level registration call in the main index.ts file that invokes the helper to add the tool to the MCP server.
    registerVerifyMessageTools(server);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the verification action but lacks details on what happens during execution (e.g., cryptographic method, error handling, output format). For a tool with security implications and no structured annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining what the tool does.

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 the complexity (cryptographic verification), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), error cases, or security considerations, leaving gaps for effective tool use in context.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description implies the parameters ('address', 'message', 'signature') but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., that 'signature' corresponds to 'message' signed by 'address'). It adds minimal semantic value beyond naming, so it meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify that a message was signed by the provided address.' It specifies the verb ('verify') and the resource/action ('message signed by address'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sign-message' beyond the obvious inverse relationship, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a signed message from 'sign-message'), exclusions, or contextual cues. Without such information, users must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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/Xiawpohr/mcpilot'

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