execution-proofs
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| verify_claimC | Verify whether claimed output artifacts exist and optionally whether they are fresh enough. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case, which is consistent with common conventions.
Having only one tool for a server named 'execution-proofs' feels insufficient. Most servers in this domain would have multiple tools for different operations, making this count too low for the apparent scope.
The tool set is severely incomplete for execution proofs. It only verifies claims but lacks tools to submit proofs, create claims, list proofs, or manage any lifecycle, leading to dead ends for agents.