Production proofs for breaking JSON Schema/MCP changes; UNKNOWN/NO_WITNESS_FOUND not compatible.
Produce a concrete independently revalidated JSON-Schema/MCP backward-compatibility witness before merge/deploy. UNKNOWN or NO_WITNESS_FOUND never means compatible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| options | No | ||
| new_schema | Yes | ||
| old_schema | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior: the witness is 'indeependently revalidted' and absence of a witness must fail closed. That is useful beyond structured fields. It does not describe side effects or output failure modes, but the fail-closed rule is a substantial disclosure.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose up front and the critical decision rule second. There is no filler, repetition, or preamble. Every sentence adds value.
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?
This is a four-parameter tool with nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description states the goal and fail-closed stance, but it does not explain what the witness output looks like, what mode values imply, or what options are accepted. For an agent to invoke it correctly, more context is required.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions mode, old_schema, new_schema, or options. The parameter names and enum values provide partial clues about mode and schema comparison, but no explanation is given for option behavior or the exact meaning of each mode. This leaves the agent to infer too much.
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 names a specific action and resource: producing a backward-compatibility witness for JSON-Schema/MCP schemas before merge/deploy. The second sentence adds the key rule that UNKNOWN/NO_WITNESS_FOUND is not a compatible result, which clarifies the tool's intent. It falls short of 5 because 'witness' is domain jargon and no plain-language definition is given.
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 gives a clear temporal trigger: use before merge/deploy. It also advises treating unknown outcomes as incompatible, which helps the agent decide when to call the tool. Since there are no sibling tools and no when-not-to-use conditions, it stops short of a full 5.
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.
contract_witnessClaiming 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!
JSON Schema validation MCP.
Tamper-evident proof creation and verification for AI agents via MCP, A2A, and REST.
Monitor MCP servers, API contracts and AI outputs for schema drift. Alerts on breaking changes.
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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlapping purposes. The tool name clearly identifies its function as producing a contract witness.
With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained. 'contract_witness' follows a predictable noun_verb-like structure and is descriptive.
The server is narrow in scope, dedicated solely to witness generation, so a single tool is reasonable. While this is minimal, it does not feel like a trivial or inadequate count for the intended purpose.
The tool fully addresses the server's core purpose: producing a backward-compatibility witness. There are no obvious missing operations within the stated domain, as the single action is comprehensive for that specific task.