Skip to main content
Glama

uniprot_provenance_verify

Read-only

Verify a previously recorded UniProt URL still returns the same release identifier and response body hash, enabling independent audit of prior responses.

Instructions

Re-fetch a previously recorded UniProt URL and verify it still returns the same release identifier and the same canonical response body (SHA-256). Pass the values from a prior response's provenance footer (url, release, response_sha256, accept_header); empty optional fields skip the corresponding check. Returns a verification report with explicit pass / drift / unreachable verdicts per check.

accept_header must match the Accept header used for the original request (default application/json; use text/plain;format=fasta for FASTA-originated provenance). Replaying the wrong header causes a guaranteed hash mismatch because the upstream serves different content depending on content negotiation.

This is the single tool that converts every prior uniprot-mcp response into an independently auditable artefact — a year from now, a third party can take the recorded provenance footer and confirm the upstream still serves the exact same bytes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
releaseNo
response_sha256No
accept_headerNoapplication/json
response_formatNomarkdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses output format (verification report with pass/drift/unreachable), explains the impact of wrong headers, and states that it makes prior responses auditable. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) which only indicate safety and openness.

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 concise, well-structured with a code block for technical detail, and each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands logically. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's verification role, the description covers input parameters, behavioral nuances, and output (verification report). An output schema exists, so return value details are optional. The description is self-contained and adequate for agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter's purpose and defaults. It details the critical 'accept_header' parameter with examples and warns of consequences. The 'response_format' is mentioned but not elaborated, slightly reducing clarity.

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 uses specific verbs ('Re-fetch', 'verify') and identifies the resource (UniProt URL with release and response body). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve data by focusing on verification of provenance. No tautology.

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?

Explicitly tells the user to pass values from a prior response's provenance footer and warns about matching the Accept header. It describes when optional fields are skipped. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the context makes it clear; alternative tools are not mentioned but are semantically different.

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/smaniches/uniprot-mcp'

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