zkproofport-ai

prepare_inputs

Step 1 of the step-by-step flow. WITH ACTION: human wallet approval is required; returns awaiting_approval until resumed with approval_id.

Instructions

Step 1 of the step-by-step flow. WITH ACTION: human wallet approval is required; returns awaiting_approval until resumed with approval_id. Approved action witnesses stay in private local storage; pass the returned prepared_inputs_id to submit_proof. WITHOUT ACTION: retains the existing credential-key signature and private witness result. Handle private witness inputs only in trusted local code, never expose them to the dApp, model or logs. Call this BEFORE request_challenge. For oidc_domain provide jwt and scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jwt`	No	OIDC JWT token (id_token) for oidc_domain circuit
`scope`	No	Scope string for nullifier derivation. Defaults to "proofport" if omitted. For oidc_domain circuit, this is the domain scope string.
`action`	No	The EIP-712 action to authorise. Optional for giwa_attestation; rejected for other circuits. Any structure is provable: the circuit hashes it without reading it, so a deposit, a grant of authority or an agreement in prose all work. The wallet signs exactly these fields, and the proof carries their hash.
`circuit`	Yes	Which circuit to use
`provider`	No	OIDC provider. "google" (default) for Google Workspace, "microsoft" for Microsoft 365.
`approval_id`	No	Resume the SAME original action request using the approval_id returned with awaiting_approval. Keep all original parameters unchanged.
`is_included`	No	true = prove country IS in list, false = prove NOT in list. Required for coinbase_country circuit.
`country_list`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes. Required for coinbase_country circuit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.46Oct 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"The EIP-712 action to authorise. Optional for arc_eligibility and giwa_attestation; rejected for other circuits. Any structure is provable: the circuit hashes it without reading it, so a deposit, a grant of authority or an agreement in prose all work. The wallet signs exactly these fields, and the proof carries their hash."New value: +"The EIP-712 action to authorise. Optional for giwa_attestation; rejected for other circuits. Any structure is provable: the circuit hashes it without reading it, so a deposit, a grant of authority or an agreement in prose all work. The wallet signs exactly these fields, and the proof carries their hash."

changedInput schema / properties / circuit / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "coinbase_kyc",
-  "coinbase_country",
-  "oidc_domain",
-  "arc_eligibility",
-  "giwa_attestation"
-]New value: +[
+  "coinbase_kyc",
+  "coinbase_country",
+  "oidc_domain",
+  "giwa_attestation"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.45Sep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Resume the SAME original action request using the approval_id returned with awaiting_approval. Keep all original parameters unchanged.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.44Sep 22, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"The EIP-712 action to authorise. Required for arc_eligibility and rejected for every other circuit. Any structure is provable: the circuit hashes it without reading it, so a deposit, a grant of authority or an agreement in prose all work. The wallet signs exactly these fields, and the proof carries their hash."New value: +"The EIP-712 action to authorise. Optional for arc_eligibility and giwa_attestation; rejected for other circuits. Any structure is provable: the circuit hashes it without reading it, so a deposit, a grant of authority or an agreement in prose all work. The wallet signs exactly these fields, and the proof carries their hash."

changedInput schema / properties / circuit / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "coinbase_kyc",
-  "coinbase_country",
-  "oidc_domain",
-  "arc_eligibility"
-]New value: +[
+  "coinbase_kyc",
+  "coinbase_country",
+  "oidc_domain",
+  "arc_eligibility",
+  "giwa_attestation"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.43Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / action

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "The EIP-712 action to authorise. Required for arc_eligibility and rejected for every other circuit. Any structure is provable: the circuit hashes it without reading it, so a deposit, a grant of authority or an agreement in prose all work. The wallet signs exactly these fields, and the proof carries their hash.",
+  "properties": {
+    "domain": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "chainId": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "verifyingContract": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "version": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "name",
+        "version",
+        "chainId",
+        "verifyingContract"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "primaryType": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "types": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "items": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "properties": {
+            "name": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "name",
+            "type"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domain",
+    "types",
+    "primaryType",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / circuit / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "coinbase_kyc",
-  "coinbase_country",
-  "oidc_domain"
-]New value: +[
+  "coinbase_kyc",
+  "coinbase_country",
+  "oidc_domain",
+  "arc_eligibility"
+]

First observedv0.2.9Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the human-approval gate, the awaiting_approval intermediate state, the resumption protocol, that approved witnesses remain in private local storage, and a security constraint about never exposing witness inputs to the dApp, model, or logs. This is exactly the state-machine and safety context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 WITH ACTION / WITHOUT ACTION structure front-loads the branch decision and each sentence carries distinct information (approval, storage, handoff, security). It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle clauses, but there is no filler to cut.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested EIP-712 object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the two execution paths, the security posture, and the downstream handoff. It leaves the exact shape of the return payload and circuit-specific parameter requirements (beyond oidc_domain) to the schema, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents jwt, scope, action, approval_id, and the circuit-specific fields in detail. The description mostly restates those bindings ('For oidc_domain provide jwt and scope') rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, though the action/approval_id workflow linkage is mildly additive.

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 identifies this as 'Step 1 of the step-by-step flow' and, through the WITH/WITHOUT ACTION branching, makes clear it prepares proof inputs that may require wallet approval before submission. It names the sibling it hands off to (submit_proof) and the one it must precede (request_challenge), so an agent can distinguish it from generate_proof or verify_proof. It never states the verb+resource outright, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 explicit ordering ('Call this BEFORE request_challenge') and routing ('pass the returned prepared_inputs_id to submit_proof'), plus the resume condition via approval_id. It does not state when an agent should prefer a different sibling tool (e.g. generate_proof) or what to do if inputs are already prepared, so no exclusion guidance is offered.

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

Deploy Server

prepare_inputs

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools