Skip to main content
Glama

verify document

verify_document

Verify a certificate or evidence bundle was issued by the platform and not altered by re-deriving its HMAC signature, enabling trust in third-party documents.

Instructions

Verify that a downloaded certificate or evidence bundle was issued by the platform and has not been altered, by re-deriving its HMAC signature — use it when a third party hands you a document and you need to trust its numbers. POST /v1/verify (API-key scope: read). Returns: Always 200 for a well-formed body: { ok: true, key_id: string } when the bytes are ours and unaltered; otherwise { ok: false, reason: 'unsigned' (no signature field) | 'malformed' (not an object or signature shape wrong) | 'unknown_key' (signed by a key this platform doesn't hold, e.g. after rotation) | 'mismatch' (any field was edited) | 'no_secret' (verification not configured on the platform) }. Notes: Read scope suffices (POST that writes nothing); nothing is stored. Verification canonicalises the document (keys sorted recursively, undefined dropped) before hashing, so key order does not matter but any value change does. Sent with Cache-Control: no-store.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentYesThe full signed JSON document exactly as downloaded (a certificate or evidence bundle carrying signature: { alg: 'HS256', key_id, value }). The `document` key must be present (400 'Body must be { document: <signed JSON> }' otherwise); its value may be any JSON.
Install Server

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses that the POST writes nothing, nothing is stored, Cache-Control is no-store, verification canonicalises the document, and successful well-formed requests always return 200 with enumerated failure reasons. readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false do not affirmatively claim side effects, so there is no contradiction.

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?

The description is information-dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, trigger, HTTP details, response variants, and canonicalisation behavior are all covered without redundancy. The response reason enum is presented compactly and readably.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully enumerates the response shape and all `ok: false` reasons. Combined with complete schema coverage for the single parameter, nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single `document` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining what a signed document looks like, how HMAC re-derivation works, and why key order does not matter while value changes do.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('downloaded certificate or evidence bundle'), and explains the mechanism ('re-deriving its HMAC signature'). This clearly distinguishes it from verification-adjacent siblings like get_criterion_certificate or get_audit_verification.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'use it when a third party hands you a document and you need to trust its numbers.' It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the described scenario is sufficiently distinct to guide an agent.

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

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/omnia-v/errorbar-mcp'

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