Skip to main content
Glama
loaditoutadmin

loaditout-mcp-server

Official

verify_proof

Verify an execution proof by ID to check its authenticity and validity. Returns verification status, skill, agent, and timestamp. Use to confirm genuine skill usage or validate your own proofs.

Instructions

Verify the authenticity and validity of an execution proof by its ID. Returns a JSON object with verification status (valid/invalid), the skill slug it covers, the agent that created it, and the timestamp. Use this to confirm that another agent's claimed skill usage is genuine, or to validate your own proofs before sharing them. Do not use this for listing proofs (use list_my_proofs instead).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proof_idYesThe unique proof identifier to verify. Format: 'lp_' followed by 16 hex characters. Example: 'lp_a1b2c3d4e5f6g7h8'. Obtain proof IDs from report_skill_usage responses or list_my_proofs results.

Implementation Reference

  • Tool definition and input schema for verify_proof tool. Defines name, description, and inputSchema requiring proof_id string.
    {
      name: "verify_proof",
      description:
        "Verify an execution proof by its proof ID. Confirms whether a proof is valid and which skill it covers.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          proof_id: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "The proof ID to verify. Example: 'lp_a1b2c3d4e5f6g7h8'",
          },
        },
        required: ["proof_id"],
      },
    },
  • Handler function handleVerifyProof that makes an HTTP GET request to API_BASE/verify/{proof_id}, checks the response for validity, and returns a formatted result string.
    async function handleVerifyProof(args: {
      proof_id: string;
    }): Promise<string> {
      const result = (await fetchJSON(
        `${API_BASE}/verify/${encodeURIComponent(args.proof_id)}`
      )) as {
        valid?: boolean;
        proof_id?: string;
        skill?: string;
        verified_at?: string;
        platform?: string;
        error?: string;
      };
    
      if (result.error) {
        return `Verification failed: ${result.error}`;
      }
    
      if (!result.valid) {
        return `Proof ${args.proof_id} is NOT valid.`;
      }
    
      return [
        `Proof ${result.proof_id} is VALID.`,
        `  Skill: ${result.skill}`,
        `  Verified at: ${result.verified_at}`,
        `  Platform: ${result.platform}`,
      ].join("\n");
    }
  • Case statement in the main switch that dispatches to handleVerifyProof when the tool name is 'verify_proof'.
    case "verify_proof":
      resultText = await handleVerifyProof(
        toolArgs as { proof_id: string }
      );
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return value structure (JSON with verification status, skill slug, agent, timestamp) and implies no side effects. Lacks explicit mention of error responses or authentication needs, but sufficient for basic transparency.

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?

Three sentences, all critically informative: purpose+output, use cases, and sibling exclusion. No wasted words, front-loads primary action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers purpose, parameter source, return structure, and usage guidance. Slightly missing error conditions (e.g., invalid proof ID), but given simplicity and absence of output schema, it is adequate for agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100% with format and example. Description adds practical guidance: 'Obtain proof IDs from report_skill_usage responses or list_my_proofs results.' This provides context beyond schema.

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 clearly: 'Verify the authenticity and validity of an execution proof by its ID.' Provides specific verb (verify) and resource (execution proof), and distinguishes from sibling list_my_proofs by explicitly directing agents away from listing.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes when to use: 'confirm that another agent's claimed skill usage is genuine, or to validate your own proofs before sharing them.' Also states when not to use: 'Do not use this for listing proofs (use list_my_proofs instead).' Provides clear alternative.

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/loaditoutadmin/loaditout-mcp-server'

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