Skip to main content
Glama

Verify code against tests (signed certificate)

soma_verify_code
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run candidate code against tests in an isolated sandbox and receive a PASS/FAIL verdict with a signed, offline-checkable certificate, confirming code works before trusting it.

Instructions

Run candidate code against tests inside an isolated sandbox and return a PASS/FAIL verdict with a signed, offline-checkable certificate (Ed25519). Use this to independently confirm that code actually works before trusting it.

Two test shapes:

  • function mode (default): tests = [{"input": [arg1, arg2], "expected": value}] and provide 'entrypoint' (the function name).

  • stdio mode: set mode='stdio' and tests = [{"stdin": "...", "expected_stdout": "..."}]; no entrypoint needed.

Supported languages include python, javascript, typescript, go, c, cpp, java, rust, ruby, php, bash and more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe complete source code to verify.
modeNo'function' (default) or 'stdio'.
testsYesfunction mode: [{input:[args], expected: value}]. stdio mode: [{stdin:'...', expected_stdout:'...'}].
languageYesProgramming language, e.g. 'python', 'javascript', 'go', 'rust'.
entrypointNoFunction name to call (required for function mode; omit for stdio mode).
Behavior4/5

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

The description reveals the isolated sandbox behavior and the signed certificate output, adding value beyond the annotations. It does not specify sandbox limits, timeouts, or what happens on ambiguous test results, but the key isolation and non-destructive nature are explicit.

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?

Well-organized with clear separation of modes, languages, and purpose. Slightly verbose but every line adds value. Could be tightened, but readability is strong.

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 when to use (independent confirmation), the two modes, supported languages, and the output certificate nature. Missing: no example usage, no details on error handling or timeouts, and output format isn't specified, but the description is otherwise informative enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema documents all five parameters with types and required status, and the description adds concrete examples for tests structures in both modes. Entry point requirement is clarified. Coverage is 100% and the semantics are unambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool verifies code against tests in a sandbox and returns a signed certificateat. Uses specific verbs (verify, return PASS/FAIL) and names two precise modes. Though siblings weren't supplied for comparison, it self-defines scope well.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to independently confirm that code actually works before trusting it.' Describes two modes (function and stdio) with examples. Does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is enough for most agents.

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/medianemi-beep/soma-mcp'

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