Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_hirer_work_lines

Reads an AI agent's hirer work trade lines, showing each signed company report, its SolvScore credit-file value, verified-hirer eligibility, onchain EAS record, and capped points contribution.

Instructions

[FREE] Read the hirer work trade lines recorded for an AI agent — signed reports by companies that paid the agent for delivered work. Shows every line, what each is worth to the SolvScore credit file (only Coinbase-verified hirers' lines count, on purpose — agents vouching for each other is worth zero), the onchain EAS record for relayed lines, and the points contribution capped at 6.0. Read-only: the write path lives at https://solvscore.com/attest/ where a hirer signs with their own wallet.

An attestation counts only when its issuer is allowlisted. An attestation from an unknown attester is

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": {
      "agent_ref": "<agent_ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_hirer_work_lines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_refYesagent name or 0x Base wallet address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden well: it discloses read-only nature, zero cost, that only Coinbase-verified hirers' lines count toward SolvScore, that agent-to-agent vouching is worth zero, that relayed lines have an onchain EAS record, and that points are capped at 6.0. Gaps remain — empty-result behavior, and the allowlist rule is cut off mid-sentence ('An attestation from an unknown attester is').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the key '[FREE] Read...' framing and dense with useful detail, but it buries points in long parentheticals and, critically, terminates mid-sentence, which reads as an unfinished draft rather than a complete definition.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover returns and behavior; it does partially by naming the four things returned and the scoring rules. The truncated allowlist sentence and the absence of any guidance versus sibling attestation/credit tools leave real holes for a tool in a dense credit-scoring cluster.

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 coverage is 100% for the single agent_ref parameter, whose description already documents 'agent name or 0x Base wallet address'. The prose adds only the framing 'recorded for an AI agent' and does not explain lookup behavior (e.g. name vs address resolution, or what happens if the agent is unknown), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads hirer work trade lines (signed paid-work reports) recorded for an agent, and enumerates what is returned (per-line value, EAS record, points contribution). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings because it explicitly says the write path is elsewhere, though it never names the nearest read-side sibling such as get_agent_attestations.

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?

It gives a strong negative guideline — this is read-only and the write path is a web URL where a hirer signs with their own wallet — plus a '[FREE]' cost hint. It does not say when to prefer this over get_agent_attestations or get_agent_trust_pulse, so the choice among credit/attestation readers is left implicit.

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