Skip to main content
Glama
zkproofport

zkproofport-ai

by zkproofport
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

prepare_inputs

Prepare private inputs for zero-knowledge proof generation, including wallet approval for EIP-712 actions and OIDC JWT handling, returning an ID for the next proof step.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jwtNoOIDC JWT token (id_token) for oidc_domain circuit
scopeNoScope string for nullifier derivation. Defaults to "proofport" if omitted. For oidc_domain circuit, this is the domain scope string.
actionNoThe 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.
circuitYesWhich circuit to use
providerNoOIDC provider. "google" (default) for Google Workspace, "microsoft" for Microsoft 365.
approval_idNoResume the SAME original action request using the approval_id returned with awaiting_approval. Keep all original parameters unchanged.
is_includedNotrue = prove country IS in list, false = prove NOT in list. Required for coinbase_country circuit.
country_listNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes. Required for coinbase_country circuit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.45
    • 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"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.44
    • 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"
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.43
    • 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"
+]
  4. First observedv0.2.9

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses async behavior (returns awaiting_approval until resumed with approval_id), persistence semantics (witnesses stay in private local storage), the difference between action and no-action behavior, and a critical security caveat (never expose private witnesses to dApp/model/logs). This goes far 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-organized, with WITH ACTION/WITHOUT ACTION framing and a clear security warning. It front-loads the tool's role in the flow. A few ideas are compressed into long sentences, but every sentence contributes necessary behavioral or sequencing information.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, nested action objects, async approval, and no output schema, the description covers the essential runtime behaviors, sequencing, and security constraints. It partially describes return values (awaiting_approval, prepared_inputs_id) and the resume mechanismamazon. It does not enumerate all possible return fields or error cases, but the schema and flow context make it sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds workflow-level meaning: jwt and scope are explicitly required for oidc_domain, approval_id resumes the same original action, and action maps to the WITH ACTION mode. This enriches but does not replace the schema detail.

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 this as 'Step 1 of the step-by-step flow' and explains its concrete role: producing a prepared_inputs_id to pass to submit_proof)SkipSignal. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the required ordering ('Call this BEFORE request_challenge') and the handoff to submit_proof. The action/no-action modes further clarify what the tool does.

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 gives explicit invocation conditions: WITH ACTION requires human wallet approval, WITHOUT ACTION retains existing signatures, and oidc_domain requires jwt and scope. It also states the correct ordering relative to request_challenge. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer sibling tools like get_action_approval or generate_proof, so guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools