OpenWorkProof
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.4.0
- Disambiguation3/5
The tool set includes many validation and verification tools targeting different object types (e.g., judgment commitments, action binding manifests, work orders, scopes), but the overlapping prefixes like owp_validate_* and owp_verify_* may cause confusion for an agent. However, descriptions clarify the specific target objects, so most tools are distinguishable, though a few like owp_scope_validate and owp_scope_compare could be conflated.
Naming Consistency3/5All tools share the owp_ prefix and most follow a verb_noun structure (e.g., get_schema, sign_payload, analyze_repo). However, three tools (owp_integrity_observation_validate, owp_control_observation_validate, owp_scope_validate) place 'validate' at the end, deviating from the dominant verb-initial pattern. Also, owp_status is a noun-only name, breaking the pattern slightly.
Tool Count2/5With 27 tools, the surface is large and exceeds the typical 15-tool upper bound. While the protocol domain is broad, many tools are narrow validation/verification operations that could be consolidated or exposed via a single parameterized tool. This count feels heavy for an MCP server and may overwhelm agents.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers a wide range of OpenWorkProof operations: cryptographic helpers (key generation, signing, verification), schema retrieval, object validation, scope analysis, delivery packaging, and ledger status. It seems to cover the core lifecycle well, though it lacks explicit creation tools for work-orders or commitments beyond decision preparation, which is a minor gap.
Average 3.7/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 605 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
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
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to rely on, so the description carries the burden. The description implies a read/export operation, but it's unclear if this produces a file, returns a link, or triggers a background process. The word 'build' in the name and 'Export' in the description suggest some processing might occur, but the agent is not told about side effects (e.g., does it create a persistent package? Is it idempotent?). No error conditions, permissions, or side-effect disclosures are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('Export') and describes the resource. Every word earns its place. However, it's so brief that it misses important information, which hurts its score below 5, but as a pure exercise in conciseness, it's well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three required parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (details not shown). However, the description doesn't explain the output, the meaning of the parameters, or the context in which this tool is used. There's no mention of what happens with 'output' (is it a path? a format?), or what 'privacy_view' options exist. The description covers maybe 10% of what an agent would need to use this tool confidently. Given the complexity of the sibling tools (crypto, verification, binding), this is insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific meanings. The parameters 'ledger', 'output', and 'privacy_view' have no descriptions in the schema, and the description's mention of 'public, diagnostic, or customer-private' hints at 'privacy_view' values but doesn't connect them clearly. The agent is left to guess the valid values for each parameter, the expected format (e.g., paths, URIs, enums), and how the three parameters interact. For a build tool with 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export a public, diagnostic, or customer-private delivery package.' uses a clear verb ('Export') and names the resource ('delivery package'), but likely a type of package. The phrase 'public, diagnostic, or customer-private' provides some scope, though the actual difference between these package types is not explained. However, among many 'owp_' sibling tools, this one is differentiated by the verb 'build' in the name and 'Export' in the description, though alternatives like 'owp_verify_*' also involve packages. It's adequate but doesn't fully distinguish from potential sibling tools that might also deal with delivery packages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or reference to sibling tools. The list of siblings (e.g., 'owp_run_verification', 'owp_get_decision') suggests a broader workflow, but the description doesn't guide the agent on when 'build' is appropriate versus other actions. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the result is a verified derived report and not payment/acceptance, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, failure semantics, authentication needs, or what 'verified' guarantees. The single sentence is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes either to the core action or to a critical exclusion, making it maximally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and an existing output schema, the description does not explain the meaning of package_path, the nature of the derived report, or the conditions under which this tool should be selected over its many siblings. The output schema only documents return shape, not operational context, so this remains incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention package_path at all. The only parameter's meaning, format, or allowed values are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what the path refers to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return the verified derived report'), so an agent has a basic idea of what the tool produces. However, 'derived report' is undefined and the caveat 'never payment or acceptance' is an exclusion rather than a positive definition, leaving ambiguity about the exact artifact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'never payment or acceptance' provides a negative boundary and hints at when not to use this tool, but it does not state when to use it or name an alternative sibling. There is no positive usage context or conditional routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior, but it only says 'validate'. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if any side effects exist, or what permissions are required. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information, effectively conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes a valid profile, how validation is performed, what the output might be, or any error conditions. This lack of context makes it insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, profile_json, has no description in the schema, and the tool description adds no detail about its format, expected content, or constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description provides no compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (validate) and the object (a signed Evidence Lifecycle profile), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like running tests or building packages. However, it does not specify what validation entails (e.g., signature check, schema compliance).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not provide context such as 'Use this to verify a profile before submission' or any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only adds 'read-only,' which largely restates the verb 'Read'. It does not disclose what happens if the ledger_path is invalid, whether the binding decision head can be absent, or any other behavioral edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the jargon 'binding decision head' is unexplained, and the lack of guidance relative to similar siblings leaves some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented ledger_path parameter. It only vaguely ties the parameter to 'a ledger' and does not explain path format, expected location, or validity requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('current binding decision head from a ledger'), and it explicitly notes that the operation is read-only. It does not, however, differentiate this from sibling tools like owp_get_decision or owp_explain_binding_decision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools such as owp_get_decision or owp_validate_action_binding_manifest. There is also no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does state 'read-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral safeguard. It does not explain what verification covers or what side effects are absent, but an explicit read-only qualifier plus the available output schema is reasonable for this simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, the resource, and the safety profile immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is passable but not complete. The key gaps are missing payload semantics and lack of guidance on when to pick this tool instead of the many related decision- and binding-focused sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required payload_json string with 0% description coverage. The description adds only that it concerns a BindingDecision, but does not clarify how a BindingDecision must be serialized, whether the string must be raw JSON, or what makes the payload valid. That is insufficient for the parameter to be used confidently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation as verifying and explaining one BindingDecision and explicitly notes it is read-only. This is specific and grounded in the tool name's resource, though it does not fully differentiate it from sibling tools that also touch decisions or bindings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance tells when to use this tool over alternatives like owp_get_decision, owp_get_binding_status, or owp_validate_judgment_commitment. The only hint is the phrase 'explain one BindingDecision,' which implies a narrow use case but does not state exclusions or contrast with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 implies a read-only comparison but does not explain what 'compare' means operationally, whether there are side effects, what kinds of mismatches are reported, or whether expected observations need a specific format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the two inputs, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two string parameters and an output schema present, so the description is minimally complete for basic invocation. However, without annotations or usage guidance, the description does not fully equip an agent to understand comparison semantics or when this is the correct tool among the many sibling validation tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the unannotated parameters. It does help by suggesting scope_json maps to the signed scope and observed_scope_json maps to the verifier observation, but it adds no detail about JSON structure, encoding, or how the v0.3 version applies to the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies the resources ('a signed v0.3 scope' and 'one verifier observation'), which clearly differentiates it from most siblings like owp_scope_validate or owp_integrity_observation_validate. The version qualifier 'v0.3' adds useful precision, though 'verifier observation' is somewhat domain-specific and could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as owp_scope_validate or other observation-validation tools. The description states what the tool does but provides no context on prerequisites, selection criteria, or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely states the forwarding action without noting whether this mutates state, requires auth, or has other consequences. The name implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a terse parameter list; every element earns its place with no redundancy. The front-loaded action and structured args make it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the parameters, but for a tool with no annotations, it lacks usage context and behavioral details such as when to invoke this forwarder and what the ledger coordinator does with the payload. The existing output schema reduces the need for return documentation, but other gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only names and string types (0% description coverage), so the description compensates by explaining 'ledger' as a path to a SQLite ledger file and 'payload' as a JSON string of the execution payload. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence clearly states the action ('Forward a repo-read execution') and target ('to the ledger coordinator'), distinguishing it as a forwarding operation among related repo tools. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like owp_analyze_repo or owp_get_schema; it only describes the action, leaving the agent to infer context. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects. It only mentions what it does NOT do (sign/commit) without explaining what 'prepare' entails, whether it creates/modifies state, or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and constraint in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool's parameters and behavioral context are unexplained; the description is too minimal for an agent to correctly invoke it without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions for 'ledger' or 'request_json' (0% coverage), and the description does not mention them, leaving the agent without any guidance on parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Prepare') on a specific resource ('a versioned decision draft') with an explicit constraint ('but do not sign or commit'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like owp_sign_payload and owp_get_binding_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage context or alternative tool names are given; the 'do not sign or commit' implies it is a precursor to signing/committing but does not state when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide a meaningful limitation ('this does not prove payment or settlement') and clarifies the tool derives readiness only. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only status, potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, particularly the critical caveat about not proving payment or settlement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not necessarily need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'readiness' means, what the ledger parameter should be, and how this maps to the broader settlement workflow, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the sole 'ledger' parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation and does not, parameter semantics are weak.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('derive readiness') and a specific resource ('settlement readiness'), and it distinguishes this tool from verification/proof tools by explicitly saying it 'does not prove payment or settlement.' However, it does not define what 'readiness' means, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used when readiness alone is needed and not for proving payment or settlement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide detailed when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, but the caveat gives some contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: no writing or signing. However, it does not explain what 'replay' entails, whether reads or network access occur, or what failure states look like, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Verify and replay' and then the key qualifier 'without writing or signing'. There is no filler or repeated information from the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described, but the description still omits usage context and package_path semantics. With no annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent has to infer too much to reliably select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter, package_path, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it explicitly. The phrase 'one surface bundle' loosely implies that package_path points to a bundle, but the description does not clarify the expected path type or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+object pair, 'Verify and replay one surface bundle', and adds the important qualifier 'without writing or signing'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes its non-mutating nature from many verification-related sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'without writing or signing' clause implies a safe verification context, but the description never states when to choose this tool over owp_run_verification, owp_verify_work_order, owp_verify_nested_claim, or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description's '(read-only, no authority)' is a valuable behavioral disclosure that signals a safe, non-mutating operation. However, the description does not explain expected behavior on invalid/signed inputs, system effects, or assumptions about the manifest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one front-loaded, efficient sentence with no filler: the core purpose and the read-only/no-authority property are both conveyed without redundancy. It is concise and scannable, though slightly more guidance could be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and key safety property, but it does not help the agent choose among the many sibling validation/verification tools. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less necessary, but the lack of usage context and parameter detail keeps it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly document payload_json semantics. However, the phrase 'one signed ActionBindingManifest' reasonably suggests that payload_json is the JSON-serialized manifest to validate, which provides some meaningful parameter context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Validate one signed ActionBindingManifest'. This clearly identifies the tool's exact object and distinguishes it from sibling validation/verification tools such as owp_validate_judgment_commitment or owp_verify_signature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion or fallback guidance. Given the large set of sibling validation and verification tools, the absence of explicit selection guidance is a notable gap.
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 present, the description carries the burden and does well by explicitly stating 'This read-only tool never signs, commits, accepts, or settles anything' and that 'Signer authority is reported as not_checked, never as authorized.' These are meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the basic assess action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly compact: one purpose sentence followed by two short behavioral clauses. Every sentence contributes new information, and there is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity—one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations—the description provides solid coverage by clarifying the read-only nature and signer authority behavior. The main gap is the lack of parameter format details, but the output schema compensates for return-value expectations, making the description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter `payload_json` has no schema description and 0% description coverage. The tool description never names the parameter or explains its required JSON structure, only indirectly implying that the payload is the population observation set. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly construct the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb 'Assess' and a precise object: 'one v0.5 population observation set against its contracts.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like owp_control_observation_validate, which presumably handles control observations, and clearly states both the resource and the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The read-only note is behavioral, not a usage instruction, and no sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative or exclusion case. The description only restates the tool's core purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'forwards' an execution and requires a signed AgentRequest in the payload. It does not disclose whether this operation is mutating (e.g., writes to the ledger), whether it blocks or returns immediately, what error conditions exist, or what happens on the coordinator side. This is a significant gap for a test-execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose in a single sentence, followed by a compact Arg list that adds necessary parameter details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks broader context about when to use this tool, side effects, or interaction with other tools (e.g., needing to sign a payload first). It is adequate for a simple forwarding operation but offers no guidance on constructing a valid payload or handling failures, leaving the agent to infer these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'ledger' as 'Path to the SQLite ledger file' and 'payload' as a 'JSON string' with the specific requirement to include the signed AgentRequest and typed arguments. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema field names and types, though the payload format could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Forward a run-tests execution to the ledger coordinator.' The verb 'Forward' plus the specific resource ('run-tests execution') and target ('ledger coordinator') leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (key generation, signing, verification, etc.), none of which perform execution forwarding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is used to execute tests through the ledger coordinator. No alternative tools are mentioned, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions provided, but the context makes the usage reasonable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and safety. It mentions replay and returning state but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the ledger, or any other behavioral traits. This ambiguity 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a minimal args list. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., read-only guarantee, error conditions) and does not address the broader context of how this tool fits with siblings, making it incomplete for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the type 'string' for the 'ledger' parameter, but the description adds meaning by explaining it is a 'Path to the SQLite ledger file.' This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Replay an OpenWorkProof ledger and return its authoritative state.' This is a specific verb (replay) and resource (ledger) with a clear outcome, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on state retrieval rather than key generation, signing, or verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for checking ledger state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide any exclusions. The intended usage is clear from context, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key detail: 'The tool never retries an indeterminate commit,' which is valuable transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or mutating, nor any prerequisites or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the non-retry behavior. It is concise, technically accurate, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool has three parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It clearly defines the operation parameter and a key behavior, but leaves 'ledger' and 'payload' undefined. While the output schema covers return values, the missing parameter documentation and lack of guidance on when to use this over similar verification tools makes it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'operation' parameter by listing its allowed values, which is helpful. But it provides no explanation for 'ledger' or 'payload', and the input-schema has no descriptions (schema coverage 0%). Since two of three parameters remain completely undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of details, and it should have explained all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs exactly one explicit verification operation, listing the allowed operation values (commit_arm, prepare_decision, commit_decision) and the version scope (v0.2, v0.3, v0.5). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like owp_verify_signature or owp_verify_work_order, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it runs the specified operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for other verification tasks. Since the allowed operations are explicit, the usage context is clear, but exclusions are absent, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Compute', which restates the name and gives no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it is deterministic, pure, or has any error conditions). This is a minimal disclosure for a computation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a compact Args block with no verbal filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the parameter specification, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input format and what the tool computes. It omits potential edge cases (e.g., invalid key handling), but such details are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides crucial parameter details beyond the schema: it specifies the exact encoding ('unpadded base64url') and expected length ('43 characters') for public_key_b64url. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource (OpenWorkProof key_id) and the input (Ed25519 public key), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like owp_sign_payload or owp_compute_digest by naming the exact derivation target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: it computes a key_id from a public key, and no alternative tools are mentioned. While the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones.
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 the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only, never signs, never commits, and reports authority as 'not_checked' without ledger/key context. This is clear behavioral disclosure, though the return format is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and safety properties, with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers safety and authority behavior. However, it lacks details about the exact validation logic or expected payload structure, limited by parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required parameter payload_json with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter's format or content. The name and tool purpose imply it is the JudgmentCommitment, but no explicit details are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: validate a signed JudgmentCommitment. It emphasizes read-only, no authority, never signs, and never commits, which distinguishes it from signing and committing tools like owp_sign_payload.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for validating JudgmentCommitment objects but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling validation tools like owp_validate_profile or owp_validate_action_binding_manifest. It provides context about authority reporting but no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 conveys that the tool is read-only ('Get') and explains the versioning constraint, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or any edge cases. The output schema covers return format, but other behavioral traits remain unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence context/constraint, and a clean Args list. There is no redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema and sibling tools available, the description provides sufficient information for a simple getter: purpose, versioning policy, and parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit enumeration of the five object types, but that may be intentionally left to discovery tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that object_type is 'one of the five schema-bearing object types' and that version defaults to '0.1', which adds meaning. However, it fails to list the five valid object types or provide enums, leaving the agent to discover them via other tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the frozen SHA-256 digest of an authoritative JSON Schema' with a specific verb and resource. The terms 'frozen' and 'authoritative' differentiate it from siblings like owp_get_schema (likely retrieving the schema) and owp_compute_digest (likely computing a digest from arbitrary data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by calling the digest a 'protocol-review anchor' and noting that changing it requires an explicit version-bump decision, implying use during protocol review. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full guidance.
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 provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by stating 'This read-only tool does not accept a ledger, private key, or signature instruction.' This discloses side-effect-free behavior and input constraints. It does not detail validation result behavior, but an output schema is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a useful constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and the authority-checking boundary. It could add a sibling-tool comparison or explicit return semantics, but the output schema reduces that need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds that the scope is 'v0.3' and that no ledger/key/signature inputs are involved. It leaves the meaning of scope_json mostly to the property name and type. The description partially compensates but does not fully explain the expected JSON structure or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and object: 'Intrinsically validate a v0.3 scope.' It also distinguishes this from authority-checking operations by stating 'without checking authority.' The term 'intrinsically' is somewhat underdefined, but the core purpose is clear and differentiated from sibling tools like owp_scope_compare.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly excludes authority-checking use cases: 'Full Manager authority is checked only by the non-MCP commit boundary.' It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, but it gives a clear boundary for when this tool is not appropriate.
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 provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It excels by detailing the exact computation method: RFC 8785 JCS canonicalisation, the envelope structure, and the removal of digest and signature fields. It does not mention error handling or permission requirements, but the algorithmic behavior is clearly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence summary, then necessary algorithmic detail, then concise parameter explanations. There is no fluff or redundant information. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, describing return values is unnecessary. The description covers the algorithm, the exact input semantics, and the envelope structure. It does not mention that object_type valid values can be obtained from a sibling tool (owp_list_domains), which is a minor contextual gap, but overall it is complete for the intended cryptographic functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by providing an 'Args' section that gives meaning to both parameters. It states object_type must be an allowed canonical domain and payload is a JSON string of the payload object. It also explains which fields are stripped, adding semantic value. It could be improved by referencing how to get the allowed domains (e.g., owp_list_domains).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Compute the canonical SHA-256 digest of an OpenWorkProof payload.' It further defines the exact canonicalization envelope and the stripping of digest and signature fields, which thoroughly distinguishes it from sibling tools like owp_get_schema_digest or owp_compute_key_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for computing the OWP payload digest, but gives no direct comparison or exclusion with siblings such as owp_sign_payload or owp_verify_signature. The specificity of the tool makes the usage implied rather than explicit.
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 present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output structure (private key hex, public key base64url, key_id) which is helpful, but it does not mention whether generation is random, how sensitive the private key is, or any side effects. For a simple generation tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the action, and every sentence adds value—the first defines the operation and the second specifies return types. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and returns. It does not explicitly warn about handling the private key securely, which would be useful, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a zero-param operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered and there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds meaning by explaining the output format and purpose, which earns the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Generate' and specifies 'Ed25519 key pair for signing OpenWorkProof objects', clearly identifying the resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools that compute key IDs or sign payloads. It also lists the return values, making the tool's function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating signing keys but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like owp_compute_key_id or owp_sign_payload. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context of signing OpenWorkProof objects gives some situational clue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and adjective 'authoritative' imply a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state behavior for invalid inputs, error conditions, or whether the returned schema is cached or dynamically generated. This is acceptable for a simple getter but leaves some uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, uses a clear structure with a one-line purpose followed by an Args list, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what the tool does, the allowed object types, and the version default. It does not explain return value shape, but that is handled by the output schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a getter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing all valid object_type values (work-order, capability-grant, etc.) and explaining the version default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions, though it does not specify constraints on the version format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('authoritative JSON Schema for an OpenWorkProof object type'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like owp_get_schema_digest, which retrieves a digest rather than the schema itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by enumerating the valid object_type values and specifying the default version. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., owp_get_schema_digest) or any exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that a user would know when it applies.
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 the full burden and does substantial work: it explains the success return ('{"valid": true}') and the exact validation criteria (six key bindings well-formed, distinct, valid maintainer signature). It does not disclose invalid-input behavior or potential exceptions, which is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact docstring with a clear one-line summary followed by standard Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter verification tool with an output schema, the description supplies the key context: the input format and the success criteria. It is slightly incomplete only in not covering invalid-result/error behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter is documented as 'JSON string of the WorkOrder object,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. However, it does not describe the WorkOrder object's required fields or expected internal structure, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a WorkOrder's identity bindings and maintainer signature.' This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like owp_verify_signature, which verify raw signatures rather than full WorkOrder identity bindings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is for WorkOrder-level verification, and the mention of 'WorkOrder' naturally scopes it against generic signature verification siblings. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but for a targeted verification routine the intended use case is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with no annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: it never signs, commits, accepts, or settles, and it reports signer authority as not_checked, never authorized. This clearly communicates what the tool does not do and what limitation exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, first sentence introduces the core purpose, remaining sentences add essential safety semantics. No wasted or redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is mostly complete for a single-parameter validation tool with an output schema: it conveys purpose, read-only nature, and the signer-authority limitation. It falls short only in parameter guidance and explicit mention of when to prefer this over sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one required parameter, payload_json, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the payload is the control observation set, but does not explain the expected JSON structure, required fields, or encoding, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific resource: one v0.5 control observation set, and the action: assess against contracts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like owp_integrity_observation_validate by the resource type and version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The read-only statement provides clear contextual guidance: this tool can validate without side effects. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 the burden and does well by disclosing the return structure (dict with canonical_domains and signed_domains), exact counts (9 and 8), and the notable constraint that sidecar-event cannot be signed. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds only essential return details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, this description is fully complete. It explains what is listed, the exact return keys, the counts, and the signability exception, leaving no gaps for selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately includes no parameter information because none exist, and the empty schema confirms no parameters need explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all allowed canonical domains for OpenWorkProof objects'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on domain enumeration, and the return summary adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is useful for discovering allowed domains before signing or verification activities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or compare it with alternatives. The guidance is inferred rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output structure (dict with signature_alg, signer_key_id, digest, and signature fields) and directs to owp_list_domains for valid object types. However, it lacks details on error handling, canonicalization behavior, key format validation, or side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the main action in the first sentence, then using an Args/Returns layout for clarity. Every sentence adds necessary information; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects for a signing tool: inputs, prerequisite domain listing, and return fields. It is reasonably complete given that an output schema exists (though not shown). However, it does not elaborate on the 'canonical' requirement or potential errors, leaving minor gaps in fully guiding usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: object_type (from allowed list), payload (JSON string), and private_key_hex (Ed25519 key). This is essential context that the schema lacks, adding significant meaning to the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Sign') and resource ('canonical OpenWorkProof payload with an Ed25519 private key'). It differentiates from siblings like owp_verify_signature or owp_compute_digest by focusing on the signing action, and references owp_list_domains for the object_type domain list, further clarifying its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on prerequisites: object_type must come from the allowed domains listed by owp_list_domains, and the private key must be a hex string. It implies when to use (when needing to sign a payload) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, though the self-explanatory purpose makes exclusions unnecessary.
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 provides behavioral specificity by detailing required fields in signed_payload ('must contain signature_alg, signer_key_id, digest, and signature') and describing the exact return values. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid input (e.g., malformed JSON, missing fields, bad base64url), which is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with an opening sentence, a compact Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameters, return values, and signed_payload requirements, making it usable for invocation. However, it lacks error-handling details and does not clarify how object_type is used in the verification process. Given the tool's simplicity, these are minor omissions and the description is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no field descriptions, but the description explains each parameter: object_type as 'the canonical domain of the object', signed_payload as 'JSON string of the signed payload' with required fields, and public_key_b64url as 'the signer's public key as base64url'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence 'Verify an Ed25519 signature on a signed OpenWorkProof payload' clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (Ed25519 signature on OpenWorkProof payload). This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like owp_verify_work_order and owp_verify_nested_claim, which focus on different verification aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for verifying Ed25519 signatures, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as owp_verify_work_order or owp_verify_nested_claim. There are no usage exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the cloning behavior (clone to temp directory) and that analysis includes file entries and dependencies, but it omits potential side effects like network usage or cleanup of temporary directories. It's adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using Args and Returns sections for clarity. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter and return details are presented efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral details, and return value overview. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does thoroughly. 'source' is described as a local path or remote Git URL, and 'clone_enabled' explains its default and behavior conditionally. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource ('repository's structure'), listing concrete output aspects (file count, languages, dependencies). This distinguishes it from siblings like owp_repo_read, which likely focuses on file contents, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: whenever repository structure analysis is needed. It also explains the clone_enabled parameter behavior, indicating remote vs local usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the validation checks (identity bindings, digest match, actor binding, Ed25519 signature) and specifies the success return value. However, it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., returns {"valid": false} or raises an exception), which is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise intro, bulleted checks, an Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids quick comprehension. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, argument roles, validation criteria, and success return format. It does not fully describe failure return semantics, but given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: claim_json is a JSON string of the AgentRequest or HumanDecision, and work_order_json is a JSON string of the parent WorkOrder. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types, though it could be more detailed about required fields within those JSON objects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') and identifies the resource ('a nested claim (AgentRequest or HumanDecision) against a WorkOrder'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like owp_verify_work_order and owp_verify_signature by naming the nested claim types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to verify a nested claim against a WorkOrder. It lists the checks performed, giving context, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/dengyier/OpenWorkProof'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server