Skip to main content
Glama
aeoess

agent-passport-system-mcp

by aeoess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

aps_create_attribution_receipt

Generate a signed attribution receipt that records a claim against a third party's self-certifying DID, enabling verifiable citation only after the cited party grants consent.

Instructions

Representation boundary: build a citer-signed AttributionReceipt attributing a claim to a third-party principal. Each party is named by a self-certifying DID that commits to the key beside it, so a receipt naming a party by a bare public key or by a did:web style identifier will not verify. The receipt is not yet valid: the cited principal must sign consent via aps_sign_attribution_consent before checkArtifactCitations accepts it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citerYesSelf-certifying DID of the citing agent, from the SDK createDID (multibase did:aps). A bare public key or the hex did:aps form from createDIDHex does not self-certify and will not verify.
ttl_msNoReceipt TTL in ms (default: 24h)
gateway_idNoGateway id for timestamping (default: 'mcp')
binding_contextYesID of the binding artifact this citation is scoped to
cited_principalYesSelf-certifying DID of the cited principal, from the SDK createDID (multibase did:aps). It must commit to cited_principal_public_key.
citation_contentYesThe quoted or paraphrased claim
citer_public_keyYesHex public key of citer
citer_private_keyYesHex private key of citer
cited_principal_public_keyYesHex public key of cited principal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv6.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / cited_principal / description
      Previous value: -"DID/public key of the cited principal"New value: +"Self-certifying DID of the cited principal, from the SDK createDID (multibase did:aps). It must commit to cited_principal_public_key."
    • changedInput schema / properties / citer / description
      Previous value: -"DID/public key of the citing agent"New value: +"Self-certifying DID of the citing agent, from the SDK createDID (multibase did:aps). A bare public key or the hex did:aps form from createDIDHex does not self-certify and will not verify."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it states that the receipt will not verify with bare public keys or did:web identifiers and that the created receipt is not yet valid until consent is signed. It does not describe return values or persistence side effects, but the key state transition is disclosed.

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, each carrying essential information: the purpose, the DID representation constraint, and the validity lifecycle. No redundant restatement of schema fields or annotations.

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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical protocol context: what is built, how parties must be represented, and why the receipt is not immediately valid. It could be more complete by stating what the tool returns or whether it persists the receipt, but the missing information is secondary to correct invocation.

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, and the description adds real value by explaining that each DID must commit to its adjacent public key and by naming invalid forms (bare public key, did:web). This supplements the schema's per-field descriptions with a cross-field constraint.

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 names a specific action ('build a citer-signed AttributionReceipt attributing a claim to a third-party principal') and clearly identifies the resource and principal parties. It also distinguishes this from related attribution operations by emphasizing the citer-signed representation boundary and the subsequent consent step.

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?

It gives clear workflow context: the receipt is created before the cited principal signs consent, and it will not be accepted by checkArtifactCitations until aps_sign_attribution_consent is completed. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with aps_create_provisional or aps_construct_attribution_primitive, so exclusions are left implicit.

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