Skip to main content
Glama

aga_init_chain

Initialize a tamper-evident continuity chain with a genesis event to establish cryptographic attestation for AI agent tool calls.

Instructions

Initialize continuity chain with genesis event. (Claim 3a)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specification_hashNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the aga_init_chain tool.
    export async function handleInitChain(args: { specification_hash?: string }, ctx: ServerContext) {
      if (ctx.chainInitialized) return ctx.error('Chain already initialized');
      const genesis = createGenesisEvent(ctx.chainKP, args.specification_hash ?? sha256Str('AGA Protocol Specification v2.0.0'));
      await ctx.storage.storeEvent(genesis);
      ctx.chainInitialized = true;
      ctx.portal.sequenceCounter = 0;
      ctx.portal.lastLeafHash = genesis.leaf_hash;
      return ctx.json({ success: true, genesis_event_id: genesis.event_id, genesis_leaf_hash: genesis.leaf_hash });
    }
  • src/server.ts:80-92 (registration)
    Tool registration of aga_init_chain in the MCP server.
    // 2. aga_init_chain (ungoverned)
    server.tool('aga_init_chain',
      'Initialize continuity chain with genesis event. (Claim 3a)',
      { specification_hash: z.string().optional() },
      async (args) => handleInitChain(args, ctx),
    );
    
    // Also register as init_chain for backward compat
    server.tool('init_chain',
      'Initialize continuity chain (alias for aga_init_chain). (Claim 3a)',
      { specification_hash: z.string().optional() },
      async (args) => handleInitChain(args, ctx),
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'genesis event' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a one-time operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, but the parenthetical '(Claim 3a)' adds unnecessary ambiguity without clear value. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the cryptic note slightly detracts from clarity.

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 tool's complexity (initializing a chain likely involves significant state changes), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter explanation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the parameter 'specification_hash'. It doesn't explain what this hash represents, its format, or how it relates to initializing the chain. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool 'Initialize continuity chain with genesis event', which provides a clear verb ('Initialize') and resource ('continuity chain'), but lacks specificity about what a 'continuity chain' or 'genesis event' entails. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'aga_get_chain' (read vs. initialize) but not clearly from 'init_chain' (similar name). The parenthetical '(Claim 3a)' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies this is for initializing a chain, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or when to choose this over 'init_chain' or other chain-related tools. Usage is implied from the action but without contextual boundaries.

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

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/attestedintelligence/aga-mcp-server'

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