tersign

Official

by tersignhq

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions. The two verification tools (verify_receipt and verify_compliance_record) could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly differentiate the artifact types. All other tools are unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., issue_receipt, open_dispute). Even longer names like submit_dispute_evidence and verify_compliance_record maintain the verb-first structure without mixing conventions.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized ledger system. Each tool covers a distinct operation across receipt issuance, verification, disclosure recording, refunds, and dispute management, with no redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: receipts can be issued and verified, disclosures recorded, refunds processed, and disputes opened, evidenced, adjudicated, and retrieved. Minor gaps like listing existing records or explicit receipt retrieval are absent but likely unnecessary for the server's narrow purpose.
Average 3.7/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 22 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a behavioral detail by explaining that the attestation is checked for digest binding and signature, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether it returns a boolean or throws, permissions required, or any side effects.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. While concise, it does not sacrifice the core message, though its brevity contributes to missing contextual information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with three undocumented parameters, including nested objects. The description is far too sparse to be considered complete. An agent would be left uncertain about the return format, error behavior, and parameter semantics, making reliable invocation impossible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 adds meaning to 'attestation' by tying it to digest binding and signature, but it leaves 'record' and 'expectedSigner' undefined. Given that the schema has nested objects with no structure, the lack of explanation is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (Tersign compliance record + attestation), and adds useful context by specifying that verification involves digest binding and signature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool verify_receipt, leaving potential ambiguity about when one is preferred over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_receipt, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. It is simply a statement of what the tool does, without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and a configuration prerequisite; it does not disclose side effects, write behavior, idempotency, validation, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably mutates ledger state.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It only covers the high-level purpose, leaving out parameter semantics and behavioral details required for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no additional meaning for originalDigest, amount, or reason beyond what the schema labels imply. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a refund against a receipt digest in the Tersign ledger.' The verb 'record' plus the resource 'refund' and the context 'against a receipt digest' make it specific and distinct from siblings like issue_receipt and verify_receipt.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning a prerequisite ('requires ledger configuration') and a target ('receipt digest'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (evidence, verdict, rationale, ledger signature) and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch,' but it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately lists the included data elements, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what is fetched and what the response will contain. However, it omits context like what a 'ledger signature' is or any failure modes, which would be helpful for full completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, a 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'disputeDigest' parameter beyond its name. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to explicitly state that the digest identifies which dispute to fetch, leaving the agent to infer the connection.
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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Fetch') and resource ('dispute record'), and enumerates the returned contents (evidence, verdict, rationale, ledger signature). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_dispute (creation) and adjudicate_dispute (modification).
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?
The use case is implied—use to retrieve a dispute record—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The description provides basic context but lacks direct exclusions or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key side-effect ('counter-signs into the ledger when configured') and the dual issuance, but it does not address failure modes, authorization prerequisites, or reversibility. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and these gaps limit transparency.
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 a single sentence that starts with the key action and covers all major aspects: issuance of the receipt, the compliance record, and the conditional ledger signing. It is free of filler and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It explains the core action but does not describe required inputs, the meaning of the compliance record, or expected behavior/response. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 22%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 9 parameters beyond the sparse schema descriptions. It gives no indication of how parameters like payer, settledAt, or taxScheme are used, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 a specific verb 'Issue' and identifies two distinct resources (x402 offer-receipt and Tersign compliance record), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_receipt and record_refund. The phrase 'for a settled payment' adds precision to the tool's scope.
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?
The description provides clear context by indicating this tool is used after a payment is settled, which helps differentiate it from verification or dispute-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: determinism, public recomputability of the rulebook, and automatic creation of refund records for refund verdicts. It does not mention potential side effects beyond refunds or error cases, but the disclosed traits are valuable and non-obvious.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the main action and a key characteristic (deterministic, public), the second adds the automatic refund record side effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and a critical side effect, but it lacks any explanation of the parameter or the expected response/return value. Given the minimal schema and no annotations, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a single-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the disputeDigest parameter or how to provide the open dispute identifier. The agent must guess that the sole parameter is the dispute digest, which is not explicit.
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 clearly states the tool triggers deterministic adjudication of an open dispute, distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_dispute and submit_dispute_evidence. The verb 'trigger' and specific resource 'adjudication of an open dispute' make the purpose unambiguous.
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 implicitly scopes usage to open disputes, which is a useful precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it narrowly misses a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions EIP-712 format and payTo authorization, which is useful, but it omits what happens on failure (returns boolean? throws?), whether it is a pure read operation, or how strict the signer enforcement is. This is a moderate gap for a verification tool.
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?
A single, well-organized sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the optional parameter. No fluff or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool verifies a nested EIP-712 artifact with an optional signer, and there is no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, error behavior, or what constitutes a valid 'offer-receipt artifact'. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about crucial execution semantics.
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?
The schema covers artifact with a basic structure description, but expectedSigner has no schema description. The description adds meaning for expectedSigner via 'payTo authorization', compensating partially. For artifact, it adds the EIP-712 format context. However, the overall parameter coverage is only 50%, and the added info is not comprehensive.
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 clearly states the action ('Verify') and the specific resource ('offer-receipt artifact (EIP-712)'), and adds the optional expected-signer enforcement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_receipt and verify_compliance_record.
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 clear situational context: verifying an offer receipt with optional signer enforcement. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, 'Verify' contrasts with issue_receipt and verify_compliance_record, and the optional enforcement clause clarifies when expectedSigner would be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that text is digested locally, an action record is signed with the caller's key, the ledger counter-signs into a per-signer hash chain, and no API key is needed—providing meaningful behavioral context beyond basic input/output expectations.
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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the mechanism. Every clause contributes information about local digesting, signing, counter-signing, and account self-provisioning.
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?
Given the tool's signing/ledger complexity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description provides essential context: local digesting, key-based signing, ledger counter-signing, and self-provisioning. It stops short of full operational guidance, such as parameter combination rules, but is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 67%, and the description adds some context by linking agentId to the signer's key and text to local digesting. However, it does not clarify the semantics of kind, medium, or resourceUrl, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.
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 identifies a specific action—recording disclosure evidence—and details the process: local digest, signing, and ledger counter-signing. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like issue_receipt and record_refund by focusing on EU AI Act Art 50 disclosure evidence.
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?
The description implies usage for recording EU AI Act Art 50 disclosure evidence and highlights a one-call flow, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description discloses important behavioral prerequisites: evidence must be signed by the payer key for claimants, and respondent evidence additionally requires the seller API key (TERSIGN_LEDGER_API_KEY). It also states the open-dispute precondition. It does not explain the outcome or error behavior, but the disclosed auth and state constraints are material and go beyond the schema.
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?
Two concise sentences are front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical role-specific requirements. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nontrivial artifacts parameter, the description covers core purpose and auth prerequisites, but it omits details about expected artifact structure, return/confirmation behavior, and explicit relationship to sibling dispute workflow tools. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer some invocation details.
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?
The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining role-specific signing requirements and that evidence is signed. However, it does not explicitly explain the disputeDigest parameter or the structure/semantics of the artifacts array, and since schema description coverage is 0%, this gap is more noticeable. The role and signing context is helpful, but parameter guidance remains incomplete.
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 a specific verb ('Submit') and identifies the exact resource ('signed evidence' to an 'open dispute'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_dispute, adjudicate_dispute, and get_dispute. It also incorporates role-specific signing constraints, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description clearly establishes when to use the tool: to submit evidence to an open dispute. It also provides role-based conditions (claimant vs respondent) and the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key constraint (configured key must be payer), the objective nature, and the differential handling (escalation vs instant ledger decision). It does not mention side effects or return values, but provides substantial behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, with no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information about purpose, prerequisites, or behavioral outcomes.
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?
The tool involves a moderately complex workflow, and the description covers the main action, role requirement, reasons, and outcome logic. Without an output schema, it lacks information about return values or next steps, and edges like uncontested mechanical claims are left implicit, but overall the description is sufficiently complete.
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 50%, with statement and claimAmount described in the schema. The description adds context around the reason enum and the payer requirement, but does not elaborate on all parameters, leaving the schema to carry some of the weight. It is adequate but not exceptional.
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 a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('objective dispute against a counter-signed receipt'), and clearly identifies the role constraint ('as the PAYER'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like submit_dispute_evidence and adjudicate_dispute by defining the action and scope.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: opening a dispute as the payer, with specific reasons. It also explains process outcomes for different reason categories, which helps the agent choose this over submission or adjudication tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tersign-js MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tersignhq/tersign-js/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tersignhq/tersign-js)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tersign-js MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tersignhq/tersign-js/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tersignhq/tersign-js)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/tersignhq/tersign-js'

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