Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proofgate-runtime

proofgate-runtime

by gamai-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

verify_receipt

Verifies receipt hashes and optional HMAC signatures to confirm integrity and authenticity, failing closed if validation or required signature checks fail.

Instructions

Verify receipt hashes and (if present) the HMAC signature. Fail closed.

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": {
      "receipt": "<receipt>"
    },
    "name": "verify_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receiptYes
require_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fail closed' is a valuable trait to disclose, but it is not elaborated: it is unclear whether failure means an error, a false result, or a rejected payload, and there is no mention of permissions, idempotency, or cost.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation comes first and the safety posture second. The brevity is close to under-specification, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

A verification tool with a nested object argument, no output schema, and no annotations leaves the agent guessing about receipt structure and return semantics. The description should state what a successful versus failed verification looks like, and it does not.

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 required 'receipt' parameter is an untyped nested object whose expected fields are documented nowhere. The description adds no meaning for either parameter and never explains what require_signature does when the receipt has no signature.

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?

States a specific verb ('verify') and concrete resource ('receipt hashes and the HMAC signature'), which distinguishes it from make_receipt and verify_claims reasonably well. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer that this is the receipt-integrity check rather than a claims check.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools. The phrase '(if present)' implies signature verification is conditional but never says how require_signature changes the contract, which is exactly the decision an agent needs to make.

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