Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AGA-mcp-server

AGA-mcp-server

by attestedintelligence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

verify_bundle_offline

Verify a canonical SEP evidence bundle offline by running the full §6 algorithm: structural floor, receipt signatures, chain ordering, leaf recompute, and Merkle bijection. Use pinned public key to confirm provenance.

Instructions

Verify a canonical SEP evidence bundle offline (full §6 algorithm: structural floor, receipt signatures, chain+ordering, leaf-recompute + Merkle bijection, signed checkpoint). Pass pinned_public_key to also prove provenance.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_bundle_offline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleNo
pinned_public_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description details the verification algorithm: structural floor, receipt signatures, chain+ordering, leaf-recompute + Merkle bijection, signed checkpoint. This fully discloses 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first describes purpose and algorithm, second adds optional parameter. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the algorithm well and parameter use, but lacks output specification (return value) and prerequisites. For a complex verification tool, this is a notable 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 has zero description coverage. The description explains pinned_public_key for provenance but does not elaborate on the bundle parameter's structure or constraints, leaving a gap.

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 clearly states the tool verifies a canonical SEP evidence bundle offline, listing specific algorithm steps from §6. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_chain by focusing on bundle verification.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use when offline bundle verification is needed and mentions optional provenance via pinned_public_key. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but context with siblings is implicit.

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