Skip to main content
Glama
agent-passport-system

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Check Artifact Citations

aps_check_artifact_citations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether every artifact citation is backed by a provided signed, unexpired receipt matching cited content and principal, with replay protection and key-bound parties.

Instructions

Representation boundary: gate a binding artifact's citations. Each citation must resolve to a provided, signed, unexpired receipt whose content + principal match, with per-artifact replay protection, and each receipt must bind its parties to the keys beside them. What a valid result establishes: every citation is backed by a receipt the cited principal consented to. What it does not establish: authority to act on the artifact. Receipts whose parties are named by identifiers that do not self-certify stop passing this gate.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artifactYesCitingArtifact with optional citations[] array
receiptsYesAttributionReceipts backing each citation
binding_contextNoRequire receipts to be scoped to this binding context

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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
    • addedInput schema / properties / receipts / items
      Added value: +{}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "receipts"
-]New value: +[
+  "artifact",
+  "receipts"
+]
  2. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is handled. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: replay protection, the requirement that receipts be signed and unexpired, the party-to-key binding, the explicit positive claim (citation backed by consented receipt) and negative claim (no authority to act), plus a failure mode for non-self-certifying identifiers.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then uses parallel 'What a valid result establishes' / 'What it does not establish' clauses that are easy to parse. Dense but every sentence carries semantic load; only the closing sentence on identifiers is slightly tangential.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully defines what a passing result means and, importantly, what it does not mean, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the boolean outcome. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic weight to the 'receipts' and 'citation' inputs by defining what a valid receipt must satisfy, but it never addresses the binding_context scoping parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'gate a binding artifact's citations', then specifies the resolution requirements each citation must satisfy. An agent can tell this is a validation/gate operation on citations, though it does not differentiate itself from the many neighboring aps_verify_* tools by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the framing as a gate whose success criterion is spelled out, and the 'does not establish authority to act' note hints at where it sits in a pipeline. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. aps_verify_attribution_primitive, aps_check_projection_consistency) or states when a calling agent should reach for this tool rather than a sibling check.

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