Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

issue_execution_receipt

Creates a verifiable cryptographic receipt from an executed tool call's input and output, giving third parties provenance for important or risky calls.

Instructions

[PAID $0.01 USDC per call — optional third-party receipt] Bind an executed tool-call input/output pair into a verifiable cryptographic execution receipt through HumanMirror Execution Receipt (humanmirror.fr, x402-verified seller). Returns receipt_id, receipt_hash, input_hash, output_hash and the hm_trace_v1 proof token. Only hashes and receipt metadata are stored on their side; the payloads themselves are not.

Use after an important or risky tool call to give third parties verifiable provenance that the call executed and what it produced. Invalid shapes are refused with HTTP 422 and no charge

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": {
      "tool_name": "<tool_name>"
    },
    "name": "issue_execution_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_nameYes
tool_inputNo
tool_outputNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it states the price ($0.01 USDC per call), the payment rail (x402-verified seller), the privacy stance (only hashes and metadata stored server-side, payloads not retained), and the failure semantics (invalid shapes refused with HTTP 422 and no charge). Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before spending money on a mutation-adjacent call.

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?

Price and one-line purpose are front-loaded, then mechanics and return fields, then when-to-use, then error behavior — a sensible ordering with little waste. The opening bracketed clause is dense enough that it has to be read twice, which costs some clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields, and with no annotations the safety/cost profile is covered explicitly, so an agent can call this correctly. What remains unstated is the payment mechanics (how the x402 charge is actually settled) and whether a receipt is durable or expires, which matters for a provenance artifact.

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 clarifies that tool_input/tool_output are the executed call's payload pair that get hashed, which is real added meaning. But it never explains what happens when the optional tool_input/tool_output are omitted (both default to null), nor what shape validation triggers the 422, so the 0% coverage gap is only partly closed.

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 names a specific verb (bind/issue) and resource (execution receipt), plus the mechanism (HumanMirror Execution Receipt, x402-verified seller) and the exact artifacts returned (receipt_id, receipt_hash, input_hash, output_hash, hm_trace_v1 token). Nothing else in the sibling list issues execution receipts, so an agent can rule the other tools out on this text alone.

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?

"Use after an important or risky tool call to give third parties verifiable provenance" gives a clear triggering condition and an explicit qualifier ("optional third-party receipt") that frames it as non-mandatory. It does not name an alternative tool for the cases where a receipt is not warranted, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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