Skip to main content
Glama
jstibal

Openterms-mcp

by jstibal
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

verify_receipt

Verify cryptographic integrity of receipts to confirm consent proof authenticity for AI agents. Public verification without API keys.

Instructions

Verify a receipt's cryptographic integrity. Public — no API key needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receipt_idYes
canonical_hashYes
signatureYes
key_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • openterms_mcp_server.py:235-245 (handler)
    Handler for verify_receipt tool, which POSTs to /v1/receipts/verify.
    elif name == "verify_receipt":
    resp = client.post("/v1/receipts/verify", json=arguments, headers=_headers(auth=False))
    if resp.status_code == 200:
        v = resp.json()
        status = "✅ VALID" if v.get("valid") else "❌ INVALID"
        return (
            f"{status}\n"
            f"  hash_matches: {v.get('hash_matches')}\n"
            f"  signature_valid: {v.get('signature_valid')}"
        )
    return _format_error(resp)
  • openterms_mcp_server.py:44-57 (schema)
    Tool definition/schema for verify_receipt.
    {
    "name": "verify_receipt",
    "description": "Verify a receipt's cryptographic integrity. Public — no API key needed.",
    "inputSchema": {
        "type": "object",
        "required": ["receipt_id", "canonical_hash", "signature", "key_id"],
        "properties": {
            "receipt_id": {"type": "string"},
            "canonical_hash": {"type": "string"},
            "signature": {"type": "string"},
            "key_id": {"type": "string"},
        },
    },
},

Tool Definition Quality

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully conveys the public access nature (no API key), but omits side effects, rate limits, error behavior (what happens if verification fails?), and whether verification is logged or idempotent.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure with no redundant words. Purpose statement comes first, followed by authentication note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. A cryptographic verification tool requires explanation of return values (boolean vs. detailed validation report), error states, and parameter formats—none of which are provided.

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 has 0% description coverage for 4 required parameters. While 'cryptographic integrity' hints at the domain for signature/hash/key_id, the description fails to explain individual parameter semantics, formats (e.g., hash algorithm), or how to obtain valid values for receipt_id, canonical_hash, signature, or key_id.

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 specific action (verify) and scope (receipt's cryptographic integrity). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'verify_receipt_by_hash', leaving potential ambiguity about which verification method to use.

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?

Provides explicit authentication guidance ('Public — no API key needed'), which helps determine prerequisites. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus 'verify_receipt_by_hash' or other receipt-related operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jstibal/openterms-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server