AgentStamp

verify_stamp

Verify an AgentStamp identity certificate by submitting its stamp ID. The tool checks authenticity and integrity, returning a validation result.

Instructions

Verify an AgentStamp identity certificate by its stamp ID.

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": {
      "stamp_id": "<stamp_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_stamp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stamp_id`	Yes	The stamp ID to verify (e.g., stmp_QLNhL-Y1CvlyWxnG)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Mar 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details, but it only says 'Verify' without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens for invalid/missing stamp IDs. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the verification result looks like (e.g., boolean, certificate details, error conditions), which is a gap in the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (stamp_id) with a description and example. The description's mention of 'stamp ID' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Verify') on a specific resource ('AgentStamp identity certificate') via a specific identifier ('stamp ID'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like trust_check or get_verifiable_credential, which focus on broader trust or credential retrieval.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its place among the sibling tools.

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