Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
capacity-attest

capacity-attest

by holistis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Resolve an ERC-8004 agent identity (read-only, on-chain)

resolve_agent_identity

Look up an agent's ERC-8004 identity registration on any chain: returns the owner of an agentId and the tokenURI pointer to its registration file, given a registry reference and RPC endpoint.

Instructions

Look up an agent's on-chain identity registration in an ERC-8004 Identity Registry: who owns the agentId (ownerOf) and where its registration file lives (tokenURI). Read-only — never writes anything, never touches the delivery ledger. Requires the caller to supply BOTH the registry reference (chain + contract address) AND an RPC endpoint for that chain: this tool does not assume, default, or bundle its own RPC provider or a canonical registry address, since ERC-8004 has independent deployments on multiple chains. This tool does NOT fetch or parse what tokenURI points to — it returns that pointer as-is for the caller to resolve themselves. capacity-attest never verifies or endorses what an ERC-8004 registration claims; see DECISIONS.md D-007.

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": {
      "agentRegistryRef": "<agentRegistryRef>",
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "rpcUrl": "<rpcUrl>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_agent_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpcUrlYesJSON-RPC endpoint (http:// or https://) for the chain named in agentRegistryRef — never assumed or defaulted
agentIdYesThe ERC-721 tokenId / ERC-8004 agentId, as a decimal string
agentRegistryRefYesCompound ERC-8004 registry reference: "eip155:<chainId>:<registryAddress>", e.g. "eip155:1:0x1234567890123456789012345678901234567890"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: read-only, never writes, never touches the delivery ledger, no bundled or defaulted RPC, no canonical registry assumption, and explicit non-endorsement of registration claims. It omits error/failure behavior for an unreachable RPC or malformed compound reference, which is the one meaningful gap for a network-dependent call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the RPC requirement and the tokenURI boundary — every main sentence carries operational weight. The closing "see DECISIONS.md D-007" pointer is internal-doc noise an agent can't act on, and "never assumed or defaulted" duplicates the rpcUrl schema text.

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?

For a 3-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: prerequisites, the chain-scoped compound reference requirement, and what the return actually contains (owner plus an unresolved tokenURI pointer). Nothing material is left to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema doesn't: why both a registry reference and RPC are mandatory, and that no default provider or canonical address exists because ERC-8004 has independent per-chain deployments. The agentId semantics (ownerOf lookup) are also clarified as a return, not just a tokenId.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — look up an agent's on-chain identity registration in an ERC-8004 Identity Registry — and names the exact return values (ownerOf, tokenURI). It also explicitly distances itself from the sibling delivery-ledger tools ("never touches the delivery ledger"), so an agent can route between the two families without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the precondition (caller must supply BOTH a registry reference and an RPC for that chain) and the boundary condition (this tool stops at tokenURI; the caller resolves the contents). It doesn't name a sibling alternative to use for the follow-up resolution step, but the when/when-not split is otherwise unambiguous.

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