Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-passport-system-mcp

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Verify Attribution Projection

aps_verify_attribution_projection
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a single-axis attribution projection locally using the issuer's Ed25519 public key, returning valid or a specific failure reason.

Instructions

Verify a single-axis AttributionProjection under the issuer's Ed25519 public key. Returns {valid: true} or {valid: false, reason: 'INVALID_AXIS_TAG'|'MERKLE_MISMATCH'|'SIGNATURE_INVALID'|'MALFORMED'}. Verification is purely local and needs no other axes.

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": {
      "projection": "<projection>",
      "issuer_public_key": "<issuer_public_key>"
    },
    "name": "aps_verify_attribution_projection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectionYesAn AttributionProjection (from aps_project_attribution)
issuer_public_keyYesIssuer Ed25519 public key hex

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: -[
-  "issuer_public_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "projection",
+  "issuer_public_key"
+]
  2. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact return shape and the enumerated failure reasons, plus the fact that verification is local and offline. It does not mention permission or key-trust requirements, but the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the return contract, then the locality constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by listing valid/reason outcomes, and annotations cover safety. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has what it needs; only explicit prerequisite/auth details are missing.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal semantics ('single-axis' for projection, Ed25519 for the key), which the schema largely supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (verify an AttributionProjection) and narrows scope with 'single-axis' and 'under the issuer's Ed25519 public key'. This distinguishes it from sibling verifiers like aps_verify_attribution_primitive and aps_check_projection_consistency, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

'Verification is purely local and needs no other axes' gives a contextual hint about prerequisites (no cross-axis data needed), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as aps_verify_attribution_primitive or aps_check_projection_consistency. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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