Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cce_attest

Answers a CCE receipt challenge with a fresh SHA-256 output hash: matching attestations vest the receipt and release credit plus stake; mismatches void it and burn the stake.

Instructions

Answer a challenge on your CCE receipt with a fresh sha256 output hash. Matching attestations vest the receipt immediately (credit + stake released). Mismatching attestations void it and burn the stake.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contribution_id": "<contribution_id>",
      "provider_id": "<provider_id>",
      "output_hash": "<output_hash>"
    },
    "name": "cce_attest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_hashYes
provider_idYes
contribution_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well on outcomes: matching vests the receipt immediately (credit + stake released), mismatching voids it and burns the stake. That is critical, irreversible-consequence disclosure. It omits auth requirements, idempotency, and whether a mismatched attestation can be retried, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences with the action and the input format front-loaded, followed by the two outcome branches. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a high-stakes three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences but not the return shape (verdict, tx reference), how the challenge is obtained, or retry behavior after a mismatch. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's risk level.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does specify output_hash semantics and format ('fresh sha256 output hash') and ties contribution_id loosely to 'your CCE receipt', but provider_id is left entirely unexplained beyond its name.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Answer a challenge') tied to a specific resource ('your CCE receipt') and specifies the payload ('fresh sha256 output hash'). Against siblings like cce_challenge and cce_verify_receipt_info the roles are inferable, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied well: you call this when you hold a challenge on a CCE receipt and have the output hash. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for the related verify/challenge steps, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools