Skip to main content
Glama

verify_attestation

Verify a cryptographic attestation for an AI output by providing the attestation ID and the original content or content hash. Returns signature check, hash comparison, and Merkle inclusion proof without requiring a wallet.

Instructions

FREE — verify any attestation issued by the notary. Supply the attestation_id plus either the original content ({prompt, response, model_id}) or its content_hash. Returns the Ed25519 signature check, hash comparison, and a Merkle inclusion proof once the batch is sealed. No wallet needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptNoThe exact prompt/input that was sent to the model
model_idNoModel identifier, e.g. 'openai/gpt-5' or 'claude-fable-5'
responseNoThe exact model output you want a receipt for
content_hashNoAlternative to supplying full content: the sha256 content hash to compare directly
attestation_idYesAttestation id (att_…) from a receipt
client_timestampNoOptional ISO-8601 time the inference ran. Included in the content hash if provided.
Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return values (signature check, hash comparison, Merkle proof) and notes no wallet is needed, providing sufficient transparency for a read-only verification operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three concise sentences with no fluff, front-loading the key action 'verify' and essential usage details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the required inputs, though it could mention error cases or limitations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds clarity on parameter grouping (either full content or hash) and the optional nature of client_timestamp, going beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'attestation issued by the notary', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_receipt or notarize_batch.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly tells what to supply (attestation_id and either content or content_hash) and what is returned, but does not mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/forgemeshlabs/x402-notary-mcp'

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