Skip to main content
Glama
agent-passport-system

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Verify Statement Promotion

aps_verify_promotion
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify that a promoted statement's PromotionEvent cryptographically meets its PromotionPolicy, including signer threshold, signature, timing, and tamper checks.

Instructions

Commitment boundary: verify that a promoted statement's PromotionEvent cryptographically satisfies the PromotionPolicy (policy_reference match, promoter in required_signers, threshold, signature, max_time_to_promote, author-signature tamper check).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyYesPromotionPolicy to check against
statementYesPromoted ProvisionalStatement

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
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "statement",
+  "policy"
+]
  2. Addedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the semantic scope of the verification (policy_reference match, signer membership, threshold, signature, max_time_to_promote, tamper check), but says nothing about failure behavior, whether it raises or returns a verdict, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical check list; no sentence is wasted. The dense parenthetical is information-rich but pushes the leading 'Commitment boundary' jargon ahead of the actual action.

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 return contract (boolean verdict vs. exception) is left unspecified, which is a real gap for a verification tool. Otherwise the description covers inputs, checks, and the read-only nature sufficiently for correct invocation.

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% and the two parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine meaning by naming the policy sub-fields that are actually evaluated (required_signers, threshold, max_time_to_promote), telling the agent what must be populated in the policy object.

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?

The description gives a precise verb+resource (verify a promoted statement's PromotionEvent against a PromotionPolicy) and enumerates the exact checks performed, which functionally separates it from aps_promote_statement and review_promotion. It stops short of naming any sibling, so an agent must infer the routing from the check list alone.

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?

The 'Commitment boundary' framing implies this is a gate that runs after promotion, but the description never states when to call it, what precondition (a completed promotion) is required, or why one would choose it over review_promotion. Usage is only implied.

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