agent-passport-system-mcp

Verify Attribution Primitive

aps_verify_attribution_primitive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a full AttributionPrimitive by constructing and validating projections across all four axes, helping confirm integrity after creation or when received from a peer.

Instructions

End-to-end verify of a full AttributionPrimitive: constructs projections for all four axes and verifies each one. Useful as a post-construction sanity check or for verifying a primitive received from a peer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "primitive": "<primitive>",
      "issuer_public_key": "<issuer_public_key>"
    },
    "name": "aps_verify_attribution_primitive"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`primitive`	Yes	An AttributionPrimitive
`issuer_public_key`	Yes	Issuer Ed25519 public key hex

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv4.0.0Aug 1, 2026

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: -[
-  "issuer_public_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "primitive",
+  "issuer_public_key"
+]

Addedv2.8.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: it internally constructs projections for all four axes before verifying, which an agent would not infer from the schema. It omits failure modes and return behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the mechanism and use cases. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only verification tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that with no output schema it could hint at what verification produces (pass/fail or per-axis results), but this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the nuance that the primitive is 'full' (all four axes), and says nothing about the issuer_public_key parameter or expected formats beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('verify of a full AttributionPrimitive') and clarifies the mechanism (constructs projections for all four axes and verifies each). This implicitly separates it from the sibling aps_verify_attribution_projection, which handles a single axis, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives two concrete usage contexts: a post-construction sanity check, and verifying a primitive received from a peer. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming the projection-level alternative, but the scenarios are clear enough to route an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server