Openterms-mcp
Openterms
Open source cryptographic consent receipts + programmable guardrails + provider verification for AI agents.
Your agent proves what it agreed to. Your policy controls what it's allowed to do. The API provider can verify both.
License Tests
Live Demo · Quickstart · Self-Host · MCP Server · Contributing · Open Receipt Spec
What It Does
Openterms sits between your AI agent and the actions it takes. Three layers:
1. Receipts — Before your agent calls an API, it gets an Ed25519-signed receipt. Canonical JSON (RFC 8785), SHA-256 hash, real cryptography. Anyone can verify it using public keys — no API key needed, no trust in the server required.
2. Policy Engine — Daily spending caps, action type whitelists, escalation thresholds. The policy engine evaluates before the receipt is signed. Denied actions never get a receipt.
3. Provider Verification — API providers register their terms URL and verify agent consent before serving requests. One public GET call. Both sides of the transaction trust the proof.
Quickstart
60 seconds to your first receipt:
git clone https://github.com/jstibal/openterms.git
cd openterms
pip install flask pyjwt cryptography pyyaml
bash quickstart.sh
Or with Docker:
git clone https://github.com/jstibal/openterms.git
cd openterms
docker compose up --build
# In another terminal:
bash quickstart.sh
Receipt issuance is free — no wallet, no deposit, no payment required.
Self-Host
Run your own Openterms instance:
# Option 1: Direct
pip install flask pyjwt cryptography pyyaml
python run.py
# Server at http://localhost:5000
# Option 2: Docker
docker compose up --build
# Option 3: Point MCP server at your instance
export OPENTERMS_API_URL=http://localhost:5000
python openterms_mcp_server.py
Everything runs locally. SQLite database, no external dependencies.
Hosted Service
Don't want to self-host? Use the hosted instance at openterms.com — same open source code, managed for you.
MCP Server
10 tools for AI agents:
Tool What it does
issue_receipt Signed receipt before any action, with provider verification headers
verify_receipt Verify receipt cryptographic integrity (public)
verify_receipt_by_hash Look up and verify by canonical hash (public)
check_balance Workspace balance
get_pricing Per-receipt pricing
list_receipts Recent receipts
get_policy Active guardrails — call on startup
simulate_policy Pre-check: would this action be allowed?
policy_decisions Audit trail of every allow/deny/escalate
provider_activity Receipt stats for your API (provider auth)
MCP Config
{
"mcpServers": {
"openterms": {
"command": "python3",
"args": ["openterms_mcp_server.py"],
"env": {
"OPENTERMS_API_URL": "https://openterms.com",
"OPENTERMS_API_KEY": "openterms_your_key_here"
}
}
}
}
How Provider Verification Works
Agent Openterms API Provider
| | |
|-- issue_receipt ------->| |
|<-- receipt + headers ---| |
| |-- webhook notification -->|
| | |
|-- API call + headers ---|-------------------------->|
| |<-- verify/{hash} ---------|
| |-- receipt data ---------->|
|<--------- response -----|---------------------------|
Agent issues receipt → gets X-Openterms-Receipt header
Agent includes header in API call
Provider calls GET /v1/receipts/verify/{hash} — public, no auth
Valid → serve. Invalid → reject.
API Endpoints
Core
Method Path Auth Description
POST /v1/receipts Bearer Issue signed receipt
POST /v1/receipts/verify None Verify receipt
GET /v1/receipts/verify/{hash} None Verify by hash
GET /v1/receipts Bearer List receipts
GET /.well-known/jwks.json None Public signing keys
Policy Engine
Method Path Auth Description
GET /v1/policy Bearer Active policy
PUT /v1/policy Admin Create/update policy
POST /v1/policy/simulate Bearer Test hypothetical action
GET /v1/policy/decisions Bearer Decision audit trail
Provider Verification
Method Path Auth Description
POST /v1/providers None Register as provider
POST /v1/providers/verify Provider Verify domain
GET /v1/provider/stats Provider Receipt stats
GET /v1/provider/receipts Provider Recent receipts
Tests
make test
# 120 tests passing (80 core + 40 provider verification)
Architecture
openterms/
├── app.py # Flask API (1135 lines)
├── db.py # SQLite database (15 tables)
├── openterms_mcp_server.py # MCP server + CLI (10 tools)
├── core/
│ ├── canonical.py # RFC 8785 canonicalization
│ └── signing.py # Ed25519 signing + JWKS
├── services/
│ ├── receipt_service.py # Receipt pipeline
│ ├── ledger_service.py # Balance tracking
│ └── policy_engine.py # Rule evaluation
├── tests/
│ ├── test_core.py # 80 tests
│ └── test_mvp3.py # 40 tests
├── Dockerfile
├── docker-compose.yml
├── quickstart.sh
└── .env.example
Roadmap
Phase Status What it does
MVP1 ✅ Shipped Signed receipts — record what happened
MVP2 ✅ Shipped Policy engine — enforce what's allowed
MVP3 ✅ Shipped Provider verification — both sides trust the proof
ORS Spec 🔄 In progress Open Receipt Specification — portable format
Integrations 🔄 In progress LangChain, CrewAI one-line callbacks
MVP4 Planned Receipt chaining, agent certification
Contributing
See CONTRIBUTING.md. We especially welcome framework integrations, language SDKs, and feedback on the Open Receipt Specification.
License
Apache 2.0 — see LICENSE.
Copyright 2026 Staticlabs Inc.
TDQS
Scored across 10 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: issuing, verifying, listing, policy simulation, and provider stats are separate concerns. The only ambiguity is between verify_receipt and verify_receipt_by_hash, though their descriptions clarify the different input methods.
Most tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern such as verify_receipt, issue_receipt, and get_policy. Two noun-phrase names, policy_decisions and provider_activity, deviate slightly but are still readable and predictable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its terms/receipt policy domain. Each tool serves a distinct operational need: policy access, simulation, decisions, receipt issuance/verification, and workspace/provider management.
The tool set covers policy retrieval/simulation, receipt issuance/verification/listin, and workspace/provider accounting, so the core workflow is complete. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit receipt revocation or policy update, but these are not clearly required by the domain.