Skip to main content
Glama
agent-passport-system

agent-passport-system-mcp

by agent-passport-system
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYesRole of the subject this cert identifies
bindingYesFor an agent: the APS agent_id. For an IS: the resource domain (e.g., mcp://api.bank.com)
issuer_idYesIssuer identifier
not_afterYesLatest valid time (unix ms)
not_beforeYesEarliest valid time (unix ms)
subject_idYesStable subject identifier (e.g., agent DID, IS endpoint URL)
issuer_roleYesRole of the issuer
capabilitiesNoOptional capability tags
attestation_gradeNoFor agents: APS attestation grade 0-3
issuer_pubkey_hexYesEd25519 public key (hex) of the issuer
issuer_privkey_hexYesEd25519 private key (hex) of the issuer — used to sign
subject_pubkey_hexYesEd25519 public key (hex) of the subject
supported_versionsYesProtocol versions supported, highest first (e.g., ['1.0'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 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 / 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"
  2. Addedv2.8.0

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

Other Tools