Skip to main content
Glama

create_receipt

Create Ed25519-signed receipts with pre-computed SHA-256 hashes for externally hashed AI actions. Records cryptographic proof with full field control and local SQLite storage for verifiable audit trails.

Instructions

Create an Ed25519-signed receipt with pre-computed SHA-256 hashes. Use when you have already hashed the input/output data externally or need full control over receipt fields. For automatic hashing, use track_action instead. Returns the signed receipt object with receipt_id. The receipt is stored locally in SQLite and can be completed later with complete_receipt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction name being recorded (e.g., "generate_code", "analyze_data")
input_hashYesPre-computed SHA-256 hash of the input data in format "sha256:hexstring"
receipt_typeNoReceipt type: "action" (default), "verification", "judgment", or "arbitration"
output_hashNoPre-computed SHA-256 hash of the output data in format "sha256:hexstring"
output_summaryNoHuman-readable summary of the output
modelNoAI model used
tokens_inNoInput tokens
tokens_outNoOutput tokens
cost_usdNoCost in USD
latency_msNoLatency in milliseconds
tool_callsNoTools called during the action
tagsNoTags for categorization
confidenceNoConfidence score 0-1
metadataNoArbitrary metadata
parent_receipt_idNoParent receipt ID for chains
chain_idNoChain ID (auto-generated if not provided)
statusNoInitial status: "pending" (default, complete later) or "completed"
constraintsNoArray of constraint definitions to evaluate (types: max_latency_ms, max_cost_usd, min_confidence, required_fields, status_must_be, output_schema)
expires_atNoISO datetime when this receipt expires
ttl_msNoTime-to-live in milliseconds from now
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: signing algorithm (Ed25519), storage mechanism (SQLite locally), return structure (signed receipt object with receipt_id), and mutability (can be completed later). Lacks only explicit mention of idempotency or error conditions.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the essential technical characteristics (Ed25519, SHA-256), followed by usage conditions, explicit alternative, and return/storage details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for missing output schema by describing the return value, covers the complex parameter set by referencing the hash requirements, and explains the receipt lifecycle (creation → completion) referencing the sibling 'complete_receipt'.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema by emphasizing that hashes must be 'pre-computed' externally and specifying the cryptographic standard (SHA-256), helping the agent understand the expected parameter format and preparation requirements.

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 explicitly states the core action ('Create an Ed25519-signed receipt') and identifies the specific cryptographic resources involved (Ed25519 signatures, SHA-256 hashes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'track_action' by specifying this version requires 'pre-computed' hashes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you have already hashed the input/output data externally or need full control') and explicitly names the alternative sibling tool 'track_action' for automatic hashing. Also clarifies lifecycle integration with 'complete_receipt'.

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/webaesbyamin/agent-receipts'

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