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

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Check Key Is Active

is_key_active
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if an Ed25519 public key is authorized for active operations in a RotatableDIDDocument, verifying it against the DID document before use.

Instructions

Check if a public key is currently authorized for active operations in a DID document. SDK convenience check. Gateway enforcement is authoritative.

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": {
      "did_document": "<did_document>",
      "public_key": "<public_key>"
    },
    "name": "is_key_active"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
public_keyYesHex-encoded Ed25519 public key to check
did_documentYesRotatableDIDDocument JSON object

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: -[
-  "public_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "did_document",
+  "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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the tool's epistemic status — it is a convenience check and is not authoritative, with gateway enforcement taking precedence — plus the point-in-time nature implied by 'currently.' That is a real behavioral caveat an agent needs.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trust caveat immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information: what is checked, what kind of check it is, and who has final authority.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only hint that the result is a boolean activeness verdict, which 'Check if' conveys adequately. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, nothing essential for calling the tool is missing, though an explicit statement of the return shape would close the last gap.

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 both parameters (hex-encoded Ed25519 public_key and the RotatableDIDDocument object) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no encoding, format, or validity detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: checking whether a public key is currently authorized for active operations inside a DID document. That is far more precise than the title alone, and the 'SDK convenience check' framing distinguishes it from the gateway enforcement path. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby sibling tools such as verify_rotation_chain or rotate_key, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies an SDK-side pre-flight use case and warns that 'Gateway enforcement is authoritative,' which is genuine guidance about how much to trust the result. However, it never states when to call this instead of an alternative, nor what a caller should do if the check disagrees with gateway behavior, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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