Skip to main content
Glama
aeoess

agent-passport-system-mcp

by aeoess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

verify_charter

Verify a charter's integrity by checking content hash, signatures, quorum, and attribution receipts for declared citations. Ensures the charter is intact and signed by the keys it names.

Instructions

Verify a charter's integrity: content hash, signatures, quorum, dissolution, office consistency, incompatibility, and, when the charter declares citations, the AttributionConsent gate over the receipts you supply. What a valid result establishes: the charter is intact and signed by the keys it names, and any citation it declares is backed by a receipt the cited principal consented to. What it does not establish: that those signers hold the authority your decision needs. A charter declaring citations cannot be valid without attribution_receipts, and fails closed with 'citations present but no receipts supplied'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
charter_idYesCharter ID to verify
attribution_receiptsNoSigned AttributionReceipts backing the charter's citations. Required for a charter that declares any; each receipt's parties must be named by self-certifying DIDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv6.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / attribution_receipts
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Signed AttributionReceipts backing the charter's citations. Required for a charter that declares any; each receipt's parties must be named by self-certifying DIDs.",
+  "items": {},
+  "type": "array"
+}
  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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the verification scope, what a valid result establishes, what it does not establish, and the fail-closed behavior with the exact error message 'citations present but no receipts supplied.' It does not describe output format or all possible failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first enumerates the verification scope, the second defines what a valid result establishes, and the third states both the requirement and failure mode. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

The description is thorough for a verification tool with no output schema and no annotations: it explains the meaning of a valid result, the citation-receipt prerequisite, and a critical limitation. It stops short of detailing the exact return structure or error behavior for each integrity check, but the essential calling context is covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that attribution_receipts are mandatory for charters declaring citations and that verification fails closed when they are absent, which the schema only partially conveys. charter_id itself relies on the schema, which is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Verify a charter's integrity,' then enumerates the exact checks performed: content hash, signatures, quorum, dissolution, office consistency, incompatibility, and the AttributionConsent gate for citations. This makes it unambiguous what the tool does and clearly differentiates it from sibling verification tools like verify_amendment and verify_delegation.

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 context for use: verify a charter's integrity and signature validity, with specific guidance that charters declaring citations require attribution_receipts and fail closed without them. It also clarifies a key limitation ('does not establish that those signers hold the authority your decision needs'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for choosing them.

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