Decode an SSTV audio recording and anchor its fingerprint and image hash to the Knox event chain.
Demodulate a presented slow-scan-television (SSTV) audio recording, anchor the audio fingerprint and the decoded image hash to the Knox event chain, and return a self-authenticating receipt bundle (Knox anchor + C2PA-aligned envelope + FRE 902(13)/(14)-shape affidavit). Audio bytes are NOT retained — only the SHA-256 fingerprint and the decoded image are anchored. Bonis Systems does not capture audio on its own; the audio must be presented by the caller (a public WebSDR recording, a customer-controlled SDR capture they consent to submit, or audio they own). Phase 1 supports Martin M1 (VIS code 0x2C, 320×256 RGB). Other VIS codes return mode = 'unsupported' with detected hex. Requires a Knox Bearer API key on the Authorization header — unauthenticated calls are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name for the recording (max 256 chars). | |
| capture | No | Optional capture-context metadata. | |
| sampleRate | No | Required when audioFormat = 'pcm16-mono'. | |
| audioBase64 | Yes | Base64-encoded audio. Either a complete WAV file (RIFF/WAVE, 8/16/24-bit PCM or 32-bit IEEE float, mono or stereo, 4-192 kHz) or raw 16-bit signed little-endian mono PCM samples. | |
| audioFormat | No | Audio container ('wav' default, or 'pcm16-mono'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that audio bytes are not retained, only fingerprints anchored, and that unauthenticated calls are rejected. Also notes unsupported modes return an 'unsupported' status. Annotations absent, so description carries burden well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is informative but slightly dense; front-loaded with key action. Every sentence adds value, but some technical details could be streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers audio format, supported mode, anchoring, and auth, but lacks details on the output receipt bundle structure. No output schema, so description should clarify output fields more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about anchoring behavior and auth requirements but does not significantly expand on parameter meanings beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: demodulate SSTV audio, anchor fingerprints, and return a receipt bundle. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'verify_sstv_decode' by focusing on decoding versus verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use: supports Martin M1 only, audio must be provided by caller, requires authentication. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling tool's name hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify a previously anchored SSTV-decode record. Given a SHA-256 anchor hash (the payload_hash from a prior decode_sstv call), return the anchor record, predecessor hash, sequence number, and timestamp. Public — no authentication required. The verification path itself is also accessible at GET /api/knox/verify?hash=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | SHA-256 anchor hash (64 lowercase hex chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description sufficiently discloses that the tool is public, returns specific fields (anchor record, predecessor hash, etc.), and mentions an alternative API endpoint. No contradictions with missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each providing distinct information: action, return fields, and public access with endpoint. No redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thorough in covering purpose, input, output details, and usage context. Minor missing error handling info, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the 'hash' parameter to the output of 'decode_sstv' and specifying it is SHA-256, beyond the schema pattern.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('verify') and the resource ('previously anchored SSTV-decode record'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'decode_sstv' by referencing the hash from a prior decode call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly indicates when to use this tool (after a 'decode_sstv' call) and states it is public. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
decode_sstvverify_sstv_decodeClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Anchor a content-creation event to the Knox chain; returns a C2PA-aligned, FRE 902-shaped bundle.
Stamp any data to the Markovian chain for a verifiable provenance receipt. Proves timing, not truth.
Verify VerixID proof-of-existence records and optionally prove ownership.
Remote MCP for C2PA intake verifier MCP, structured receipts, audit logs, and reviewer-ready evidenc
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: decode_sstv performs decoding and anchoring, while verify_sstv_decode handles verification. No functional overlap exists.
Both tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (decode_sstv, verify_sstv_decode) using snake_case.
With only 2 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its core functionality: decoding and verifying SSTV audio. This is appropriate for a specialized server.
The tool set covers the complete lifecycle presented: decoding and anchoring, followed by verification. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.