WaxSeal

Official

by degenlegion-com

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a uniquely defined purpose: creating/verifying approval tokens, signing/verifying documents, looking up identities, and returning platform info. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a strict waxseal.<category>.<action> naming scheme (e.g., waxseal.approval.create, waxseal.identity.verify). Verbs and categories are consistently applied.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools cover the essential operations of a cryptographic trust platform: identity, signatures, approvals, and info. The number is well-balanced and not excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow—sign, verify, approve, lookup identity, and get info. A minor gap is the lack of revocation or listing operations, but the primary use cases are addressed.
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 30 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values and verifiability but does not state whether the operation is side-effect-free or if multiple calls are safe.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains inputs, prerequisites, and return values (fingerprint, hash, signature). The verifiability note adds useful context.
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 coverage is 100%; both parameters are documented in the schema. Description only restates the 'description' param's purpose, adding no new information beyond 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 clearly states the verb ('Sign'), the resource ('document or message'), and the key algorithm ('WaxSeal Ed25519 private key'). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning verifiability via waxseal.signature.verify.
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?
Explicitly requires the WAXSEAL_PRIVATE_KEY_PEM environment variable, setting a clear prerequisite. Implicitly contrasts with verification tools in siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the token encodes action, context, expiry, is signed, and requires a private key. However, it does not detail error conditions (e.g., invalid key) or output format. Overall, good transparency for a simple crypto token creation.
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?
The description is three sentences, each essential: purpose, encoding details, and usage workflow. It is front-loaded with the main goal and avoids fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given simple invocation (3 params, no output schema), the description covers creation, usage, and prerequisite. It lacks explicit mention of the output type (e.g., string token) and error scenarios. However, it is largely complete for an agent to understand usage.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter purposes (e.g., action as description) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, which already has clear examples. No extra value beyond confirmation.
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 creates a signed approval token proving human authorization for an AI agent action. It distinguishes from siblings like waxseal.approval.verify by explaining the workflow (pass token to agent, which verifies). The verb 'create' and resource 'approval token' are specific.
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 explains when to use: when a human needs to authorize an AI agent action. It mentions the workflow (pass token to agent) and a prerequisite (requires WAXSEAL_PRIVATE_KEY_PEM). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling differentiation is clear from the workflow mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly lists the returned fields (on-chain status, display name, chain, owner wallet, lifecycle status, public key), making it clear this is a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential side effects or auth needs, but those are likely irrelevant for a lookup.
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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and input, the second lists outputs and scope. Every sentence adds value, and the key info is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough: it covers input format, output contents, and supported chains. Missing error handling or edge cases, but these are minor for a straightforward lookup.
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% with a description for 'fingerprint'. The description adds utility details: SHA-256 of Ed25519 public key and optional 0x prefix, which goes beyond the schema's baseline and helps the agent format input correctly.
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's action: look up a WaxSeal cryptographic identity by hex fingerprint. It distinguishes from sibling tools (approvals, signatures, info) by specifying it returns identity-related data like on-chain status, display name, chain, owner, etc.
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?
The description implies usage: when you have a fingerprint and want identity details. It mentions supported chains but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Minimal guidance beyond the core purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it fetches the public key from the WaxSeal network and performs local verification. It explains a precondition (on-chain minting). However, it could be more explicit about potential failures (e.g., network issues, invalid signature format) or success conditions.
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?
The description is three sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, followed by two sentences explaining the verification process and a key requirement. Each sentence adds essential information.
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?
Given the tool is simple with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions and preconditions. However, it does not specify the return value (presumably boolean or status), which is helpful for an agent to interpret the result. This gap prevents a higher score.
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% and parameter descriptions are already informative. The tool description adds context that the signature is 'Base64 Ed25519 signature returned by waxseal.document.sign' and the fingerprint is '64-character hex', which helps agents understand the expected formats beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying an Ed25519 signature produced by a specific signer. It specifies the algorithm, the source (WaxSeal network), and a precondition. Differentiates from sibling tools like waxseal.approval.verify and waxseal.identity.verify by focusing on pure signature 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 indicates when to use the tool: after signing with waxseal.document.sign or any WaxSeal-compatible signer. It also mentions a precondition (seal must be minted on-chain). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification checks signature, expiry, and optionally fingerprint, and returns valid: true only when conditions are met. This is transparent, though it could mention read-only nature or potential error responses.
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 with no filler: first sets purpose and usage context, second details verification steps, third defines the success condition. Every sentence is informative and essential.
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?
Given two parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics and the return condition for success. However, it does not describe error responses or the shape of failure, which would complete the picture for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds value by linking approval_token to its creation (waxseal.approval.create) and explaining expected_fingerprint's conditional behavior. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.
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 WaxSeal approval token, specifying the action (verify), resource (approval token), and what it checks (cryptographic signature, expiry, optionally fingerprint). It distinguishes from siblings like waxseal.approval.create and waxseal.signature.verify by focusing on approval tokens specifically.
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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before an AI agent executes a high-risk or irreversible action,' providing clear context. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a non-destructive, read-only operation returning an overview. No side effects or permissions are needed, but it could mention if any authentication is required, though not critical for an info tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, no-output-schema info tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete and leaves no gaps in understanding.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are zero parameters, as there is no additional information needed beyond what the schema already provides.
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 that the tool returns an overview of the WaxSeal platform, including its trust layers, tiers, and usage guidance. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., waxseal.approval.create) which perform specific actions, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly advises to call this first if unfamiliar with WaxSeal, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives for familiar users, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![waxseal-sdk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/degenlegion-com/waxseal-sdk/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/degenlegion-com/waxseal-sdk)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![waxseal-sdk MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/degenlegion-com/waxseal-sdk/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/degenlegion-com/waxseal-sdk)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/degenlegion-com/waxseal-sdk'

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