Skip to main content
Glama

w3_can_access_claim

Claim delegated capabilities for an authorized account by submitting a valid proof, such as a CID string or CAR file path, to enable access to specific resources.

Instructions

Claims delegated capabilities for the authorized account using a provided proof.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofYesDelegation proof (e.g., path to CAR file or base64 CID string) containing capabilities to claim.

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the w3_can_access_claim tool logic. It parses the input arguments using the schema, executes the w3 CLI command 'can access claim', and returns the output in the expected format.
    const handleW3CanAccessClaim: ToolHandler = async (args) => {
      const parsed = Schemas.W3CanAccessClaimArgsSchema.safeParse(args);
      if (!parsed.success)
        throw new Error(
          `Invalid arguments for w3_can_access_claim: ${parsed.error.message}`
        );
      const { proof } = parsed.data;
      const { stdout } = await runW3Command(`can access claim "${proof}"`);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              message: "Capability claim attempted.",
              output: stdout.trim(),
            }),
          },
        ],
      };
    };
  • Zod schema defining the input arguments for the w3_can_access_claim tool, specifically requiring a 'proof' string.
    export const W3CanAccessClaimArgsSchema = z
      .object({
        proof: z
          .string()
          .describe(
            "Delegation proof (e.g., path to CAR file or base64 CID string) containing capabilities to claim."
          ),
      })
      .describe(
        "Claims delegated capabilities for the authorized account using a provided proof."
      );
  • Registration of the 'w3_can_access_claim' tool name mapped to its handler function in the toolHandlers export.
    w3_can_access_claim: handleW3CanAccessClaim,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'claims delegated capabilities,' which implies a mutation or authorization action, but does not specify if this requires special permissions, is idempotent, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with potential security implications, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the action from the parameter context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a capability-claiming tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'delegated capabilities' are, how they are used after claiming, or what the tool returns. For a security-related operation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding the tool's full context and behavior.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the single 'proof' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it repeats the parameter's purpose without providing additional context like example formats or constraints. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('claims delegated capabilities') and the resource ('for the authorized account'), specifying the method ('using a provided proof'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like w3_delegation_create or w3_proof_add by focusing on claiming capabilities rather than creating or adding them. However, it lacks explicit mention of what 'delegated capabilities' entail in this context, slightly reducing specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a proof from another tool like w3_delegation_create), exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as w3_delegation_ls or w3_proof_ls. The context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexbakers/mcp-ipfs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server