agent-passport-system-mcp

Build Mutual-Auth Certificate

mutualAuthBuildCertificate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build and sign a mutual-auth certificate for an agent or information system using the issuer's Ed25519 private key, returning a signed object ready for a handshake.

Instructions

Build and sign a mutual-auth certificate identifying an agent or information system. Returns the signed MutualAuthCertificate object ready to carry into a handshake. The issuer's Ed25519 private key (hex) signs over the canonical (JCS) form.

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": {
      "role": "<role>",
      "subject_id": "<subject_id>",
      "subject_pubkey_hex": "<subject_pubkey_hex>",
      "issuer_id": "<issuer_id>",
      "issuer_role": "<issuer_role>",
      "issuer_pubkey_hex": "<issuer_pubkey_hex>",
      "issuer_privkey_hex": "<issuer_privkey_hex>",
      "binding": "<binding>",
      "not_before": "<not_before>",
      "not_after": "<not_after>",
      "supported_versions": "<supported_versions>"
    },
    "name": "mutualAuthBuildCertificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	Role of the subject this cert identifies
`binding`	Yes	For an agent: the APS agent_id. For an IS: the resource domain (e.g., mcp://api.bank.com)
`issuer_id`	Yes	Issuer identifier
`not_after`	Yes	Latest valid time (unix ms)
`not_before`	Yes	Earliest valid time (unix ms)
`subject_id`	Yes	Stable subject identifier (e.g., agent DID, IS endpoint URL)
`issuer_role`	Yes	Role of the issuer
`capabilities`	No	Optional capability tags
`attestation_grade`	No	For agents: APS attestation grade 0-3
`issuer_pubkey_hex`	Yes	Ed25519 public key (hex) of the issuer
`issuer_privkey_hex`	Yes	Ed25519 private key (hex) of the issuer — used to sign
`subject_pubkey_hex`	Yes	Ed25519 public key (hex) of the subject
`supported_versions`	Yes	Protocol versions supported, highest first (e.g., ['1.0'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 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
```

addedInput schema / properties / attestation_grade / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "const": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "const": 1,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "const": 2,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "const": 3,
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / attestation_grade / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  0,
-  1,
-  2,
-  3
-]
```
removedInput schema / properties / attestation_grade / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```

Addedv2.8.0May 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavioral detail: signing is done by the issuer's Ed25519 private key over the JCS canonical form, and the return value is the signed certificate object. It does not state key-handling caveats or failure modes, but the extra signing context is real value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then the signing detail. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 13-parameter (11 required), no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what is produced and how it is signed, and the schema documents every parameter. It stops short of describing the returned certificate's fields or any error conditions, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that issuer_privkey_hex signs over the canonical (JCS) form, clarifying the signing input and which key is consumed for signing rather than merely 'used to sign'. Other 12 parameters are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb pair and resource ('Build and sign a mutual-auth certificate') and scopes the subject ('identifying an agent or information system'), which implicitly separates it from the verify/derive siblings in the mutualAuth family. An agent knows exactly what artifact this produces without opening the schema.

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?

'Ready to carry into a handshake' implies this is the issuance step preceding a mutual-auth exchange, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling (e.g., mutualAuthVerifyAttest) is named as an alternative. Usage is inferable 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