proofgate-runtime
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| verify_claimsC | Fail-closed claim verification: confirmed/refuted/unverified + SHA-256 report hash. |
| make_receiptB | Create a SHA-256-bound receipt for an intent/result (unsigned over MCP; use CLI to sign). |
| verify_receiptC | Verify receipt hashes and (if present) the HMAC signature. Fail closed. |
| check_injectionC | Lexical prompt-injection pre-filter (lite). Full guard: gamai-io/gamai-guard. |
| runtime_infoA | ProofGate Runtime version and capabilities. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a distinct target: claims verification, receipt creation, receipt verification, injection filtering, and runtime metadata. The only mild overlap is between verify_claims and verify_receipt, where an agent must read descriptions to know which object is being verified.
Four of five tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (verify_claims, make_receipt, verify_receipt, check_injection). runtime_info breaks the pattern as a noun-only name, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a proof/verification runtime, with each tool earning its place. No redundant or filler tools are present.
The core lifecycle—verify claims, issue receipts, verify receipts, screen input, report capabilities—is covered. The notable gap is that receipt signing is only available via CLI, and there is no listing or lookup of existing receipts, though agents can work around the signing gap.