Skip to main content
Glama
aeoess

agent-passport-system-mcp

by aeoess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

aps_sign_attribution_consent

Adds the cited principal's consent signature to an AttributionReceipt. This satisfies verification and artifact citation checks, preventing receipt rejection.

Instructions

Representation boundary: the cited principal adds their consent signature to an AttributionReceipt. Without this signature, verifyAttributionConsent and checkArtifactCitations reject the receipt. The signature is checked against the key the receipt carries for that party, and that key must be the one the party DID commits to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receiptYesAttributionReceipt JSON from aps_create_attribution_receipt
cited_principal_private_keyYesHex private key of cited principal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "cited_principal_private_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "receipt",
+  "cited_principal_private_key"
+]
  2. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the mutation ('adds their consent signature'), the downstream consequence for verification tools, and the cryptographic requirement that the signature is checked against the receipt's party key and the DID-committed key. It does not mention return values or explicit failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

The description is three sentences and each contributes: the action, the downstream dependency, and the key-validity constraint. The phrase 'Representation boundary' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but the description is otherwise dense 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?

For a two-parameter signing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, workflow placement, and the key-matching precondition, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It omits the return shape and failure behavior, but the input schema covers the parameters and the dependency context is strong.

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. The description adds meaningful param semantics by linking the private key to the receipt: the key must match the one the receipt carries for that party and must be the one committed to by that party's DID. This clarifies the relationship between the two otherwise separate 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 states a specific action and resource: the cited principal 'adds their consent signature to an AttributionReceipt.' It also distinguishes this tool from its verification siblings by explaining that verifyAttributionConsent and checkArtifactCitations reject the receipt without this signature.

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 gives clear usage context: use this before relying on verifyAttributionConsent or checkArtifactCitations, and ensure the signing key is the one the cited principal's DID commits to. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the named dependencies make the intended placement in the workflow clear.

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