@gblin-protocol/mcp-server

get_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a sealed AI Action Receipt by index from GBLIN's public transparency log to retrieve a portable bundle with Ed25519 signature, Merkle proof, and checkpoint for offline verification.

Instructions

Fetch a sealed AI Action Receipt by index from GBLIN's public transparency log (free forever). Returns the full portable receipt — canonical payload, Ed25519 signature, RFC 6962 Merkle inclusion proof against the current tree, operator-signed C2SP checkpoint — which any third party can verify offline with verify-receipt.mjs (zero dependencies).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	Yes	Zero-based index of the receipt in the log (see the log overview at https://gblin-mcp.gblin-mcp-worker.workers.dev/log for the current size).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`leaf`	No
`note`	No
`root`	No
`index`	Yes
`anchor`	No
`format`	No
`verify`	No	How to verify this receipt.
`payload`	Yes	The sealed record as signed.
`signature`	Yes
`tree_size`	No
`checkpoint`	No
`human_page`	No
`provenance`	No
`verifier_key`	No
`verify_offline`	No
`inclusion_proof`	Yes	Sibling hashes from the leaf to the root (RFC 6962).
`canonical_sha256`	No
`canonicalization`	No	The canonical JSON form the leaf is hashed from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.5Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the log is public and free forever, the returned receipt is portable and includes canonical payload, Ed25519 signature, RFC 6962 Merkle inclusion proof, and C2SP checkpoint, and it can be verified offline with verify-receipt.mjs. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior for out-of-range indices, but it adds substantial value over the structured annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first sentence, followed by return details in the second. It is appropriately sized for a technically rich tool, though phrases like 'free forever' and 'zero dependencies' are mildly promotional and not strictly necessary for invocation correctness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It supplements the structured fields with verification context and return composition, and no critical invocation information is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single index parameter is fully documented in the schema, including zero-based semantics and a link to the log overview. The description only repeats 'by index' without adding new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch a sealed AI Action Receipt by index from GBLIN's public transparency log. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like seal_action_demo or verify_risk_attestation, which perform different operations on related concepts. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose implies the use case: retrieve a receipt when you have its index and want the full verifiable artifact. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_risk_attestation or get_transaction_status, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is therefore implied but not fully guided.

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