Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proofgate-runtime

proofgate-runtime

by gamai-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

make_receipt

Generate a SHA-256-bound receipt for an intent and result via MCP; sign it with the CLI to produce a verifiable, tamper-evident record.

Instructions

Create a SHA-256-bound receipt for an intent/result (unsigned over MCP; use CLI to sign).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intent": "<intent>",
      "result": "<result>"
    },
    "name": "make_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
intentYes
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 usefully discloses that the receipt is SHA-256-bound and unsigned over MCP, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, storage/return behavior, idempotency, or what happens with the resulting receipt.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical about unsigned MCP behavior and CLI signing adds useful context compactly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with three parameters, one nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It should clarify intent/result/meta expectations and the practical behavior of the unsigned receipt.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only names the intent/result inputs without explaining their expected formats or structure. The optional meta object is not mentioned at all, so meaningful parameter semantics are largely absent.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: creating a SHA-256-bound receipt for an intent/result. It implicitly distinguishes create_receipt from verify_receipt through the verb 'create', but does not explicitly differentiate its role from siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: receipts created over MCP are unsigned, and signing should be done via the CLI. It does not state when to use this versus verify_receipt or other sibling tools, so exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools