Check any company's witnessed trust record on the Trooth Network, live and read-only.
Ask about Trooth itself (products, pricing, methodology, how witnessing works). Answers come from Trooth's curated knowledge base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | A question about Trooth |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup. |
| subject | Yes | The company, domain or token this answer is about. |
| summary | Yes | The same answer as the text content, for display. |
| claim_url | No | Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner. |
| provenance | Yes | Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that answers come from Trooth's curated knowledge base, which clarifies the answer source and constrains expectations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, scope, and answer source with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.
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 single-parameter Q&A tool with an output schema, annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to ask, what scope is allowed, and where answers come from. There are no significant gaps.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single 'question' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples of valid question topics, such as products, pricing, methodology, and how witnessing works.
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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') and a clear resource scope ('about Trooth itself'), with concrete topics such as products, pricing, methodology, and how witnessing works. It is distinct from sibling tools in topic, though it does not explicitly name them to draw the contrast.
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 clear context on when to use the tool: for questions about Trooth itself, especially the listed topic areas. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives, but the self-scoped subject matter is a strong usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Perform a live, neutral read of a domain's public security surface right now: HTTPS/TLS reachability, common security headers (HSTS, CSP, nosniff, frame protection, referrer policy), and /.well-known/security.txt. These are observations from the public internet, not witnessed evidence and not a grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to read, e.g. example.com |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup. |
| subject | Yes | The company, domain or token this answer is about. |
| summary | Yes | The same answer as the text content, for display. |
| claim_url | No | Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner. |
| provenance | Yes | Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: results are time-sensitive ('right now'), are observations from the public internet, and are explicitly not witnessed evidence or a grade. This clarifies the epistemic status and limitations of the returned data, with no contradiction to 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, target, and the exact checks performed; the second concisely clarifies the nature of the output. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what is observed, the live/neutral nature, and what the results are not. There is no missing information an agent needs to decide whether to invoke this tool.
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?
The only parameter, domain, has a clear schema description ('Domain to read, e.g. example.com') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Perform a live, neutral read of a domain's public security surface') and enumerates exactly what is checked (HTTPS/TLS, security headers, security.txt). It also differentiates itself from similar tools by explicitly noting it is 'not witnessed evidence and not a grade', which separates it from trooth_verify and trooth_public_trust_profile without needing to open schemas.
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 clear context for when to use it: a 'live, neutral read right now' of the public security surface. It implicitly excludes other use cases with 'not witnessed evidence and not a grade', but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide direct when-to-use vs alternative guidance, so it falls shy of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up a company's published, witnessed Trust Profile on Trooth by domain or slug. Returns the witnessed standing, pillar summary, and evidence-chain stats for companies that publish an OS profile, or the witnessed Network standing (signed scan result) for companies listed in the public directory. Unknown companies return an honest not-found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Company domain (e.g. acme.com) or Trooth slug |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup. |
| subject | Yes | The company, domain or token this answer is about. |
| summary | Yes | The same answer as the text content, for display. |
| claim_url | No | Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner. |
| provenance | Yes | Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses what is returned: witnessed standing, pillar summary, evidence-chain stats, or signed network standing. It also explicitly states that unknown companies return an honest not-found, adding useful behavioral detail without contradicting 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?
Two sentences deliver the core action, the result variants, and the not-found behavior without filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct information.
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?
With one fully documented parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema available, the description covers the essential remaining context: the two result categories and the handling of unknown companies. Nothing significant is missing for correct invocation.
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?
The single 'company' parameter already has 100% schema coverage as 'Company domain (e.g. acme.com) or Trooth slug.' The description restates 'by domain or slug' but adds no new format, validation, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a company's published, witnessed Trust Profile on Trooth by domain or slug.' It goes on to describe the exact return categories (OS profile results vs. public directory network standing), making it clearly distinct from siblings like trooth_ask or trooth_verify.
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 clear lookup context and conditions: use it for a published/witnessed Trust Profile or a public-directory listing, with an explicit not-found behavior. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, but the intended use case is still evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify a Trooth Trust Ledger Token (a signed, portable trust receipt in tlt2 / tlt form, or its JTI). Re-runs both signatures independently and returns whether the token is valid, expired, revoked, or tampered - plus honest provenance: Trooth's outer signature attests only the witnessing event and the byte-for-byte payload at issuance, never the truthfulness of the declared claims. Unknown tokens return an honest not-found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | A Trust Ledger Token (tlt2. or tlt. form) or its JTI |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup. |
| subject | Yes | The company, domain or token this answer is about. |
| summary | Yes | The same answer as the text content, for display. |
| claim_url | No | Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner. |
| provenance | Yes | Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it re-runs both signatures independently, reports specific outcome categories, explicitly states the provenance limitation that Trooth's outer signature does not attest truthfulness, and discloses that unknown tokens return a not-found result.
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?
Three sentences deliver purpose, outcome categories, behavioral caveats, and unknown-token handling. The description is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct, necessary information without filler.
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?
With an output schema available and one fully documented parameter, the description covers behavior, result categories, provenance limits, and unknown-token handling. It is complete for calling the tool correctly, though it could be stronger by explicitly positioning itself against sibling tools.
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?
The input schema already documents the single token parameter with 100% coverage, including tlt2/tlt/JTI forms. The description repeats these accepted forms but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 opens with an explicit verb and resource: 'Verify a Trooth Trust Ledger Token,' and further specifies accepted forms (tlt2/tlt/JTI). It clearly distinguishes the verification function from sibling tools by stating exactly what it returns: valid, expired, revoked, or tampered.
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 implies appropriate usage—when you have a token or JTI and need its validity status—but it never explicitly contrasts trooth_verify with sibling tools like trooth_ask, trooth_outside_in_read, or trooth_public_trust_profile. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
trooth_verify1 field changedInput schema / properties / token / descriptionPrevious value: -"A Trust Ledger Token (tlt2.… / tlt.…) or its JTI"New value: +"A Trust Ledger Token (tlt2. or tlt. form) or its JTI"trooth_ask1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "claim_url": {
+ "description": "Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provenance": {
+ "description": "Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject.",
+ "enum": [
+ "witnessed_signed",
+ "signed_scan",
+ "live_observation",
+ "honest_absence",
+ "withheld_by_owner",
+ "knowledge_base",
+ "input_error"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup.",
+ "enum": [
+ "published",
+ "listed",
+ "unclaimed",
+ "private",
+ "observed",
+ "valid",
+ "invalid",
+ "expired",
+ "revoked",
+ "answered",
+ "out_of_scope",
+ "bad_input"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "description": "The company, domain or token this answer is about.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "The same answer as the text content, for display.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "provenance",
+ "subject",
+ "summary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}trooth_outside_in_read1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "claim_url": {
+ "description": "Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provenance": {
+ "description": "Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject.",
+ "enum": [
+ "witnessed_signed",
+ "signed_scan",
+ "live_observation",
+ "honest_absence",
+ "withheld_by_owner",
+ "knowledge_base",
+ "input_error"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup.",
+ "enum": [
+ "published",
+ "listed",
+ "unclaimed",
+ "private",
+ "observed",
+ "valid",
+ "invalid",
+ "expired",
+ "revoked",
+ "answered",
+ "out_of_scope",
+ "bad_input"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "description": "The company, domain or token this answer is about.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "The same answer as the text content, for display.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "provenance",
+ "subject",
+ "summary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}trooth_public_trust_profile1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "claim_url": {
+ "description": "Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provenance": {
+ "description": "Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject.",
+ "enum": [
+ "witnessed_signed",
+ "signed_scan",
+ "live_observation",
+ "honest_absence",
+ "withheld_by_owner",
+ "knowledge_base",
+ "input_error"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup.",
+ "enum": [
+ "published",
+ "listed",
+ "unclaimed",
+ "private",
+ "observed",
+ "valid",
+ "invalid",
+ "expired",
+ "revoked",
+ "answered",
+ "out_of_scope",
+ "bad_input"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "description": "The company, domain or token this answer is about.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "The same answer as the text content, for display.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "provenance",
+ "subject",
+ "summary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}trooth_verify1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "claim_url": {
+ "description": "Present only when the subject has no published record and could be claimed by its owner.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "provenance": {
+ "description": "Where this answer came from. An honest_absence is missing data, never a judgment about the subject.",
+ "enum": [
+ "witnessed_signed",
+ "signed_scan",
+ "live_observation",
+ "honest_absence",
+ "withheld_by_owner",
+ "knowledge_base",
+ "input_error"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Machine-branchable outcome for this lookup.",
+ "enum": [
+ "published",
+ "listed",
+ "unclaimed",
+ "private",
+ "observed",
+ "valid",
+ "invalid",
+ "expired",
+ "revoked",
+ "answered",
+ "out_of_scope",
+ "bad_input"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "description": "The company, domain or token this answer is about.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "The same answer as the text content, for display.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "provenance",
+ "subject",
+ "summary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}trooth_asktrooth_outside_in_readtrooth_public_trust_profiletrooth_verifyClaiming 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!
Search and verify 360K+ business entities with trust scores and W3C credentials.
Verify a company on official registries (GLEIF LEI, SEC EDGAR), screen sanctions. Free.
Agent-first US business trust registry with neutral Trust Cards and published evidence.
Verify business legitimacy by domain or name in <2s. Trust score, verdict, evidence. x402-payable.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: product Q&A, live security observation, published trust profile lookup, and token verification. Even the two domain-related tools are clearly separated by live scan versus published record.
All tools share the trooth_ prefix and snake_case style, but the post-prefix names are mixed: ask and verify are bare verbs, outside_in_read is a compound verb, and public_trust_profile is a noun. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun pattern.
Four tools is a well-scoped count for this server's purpose. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core read-only lifecycle: product knowledge, live security reads, trust profile lookup, and token verification. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain.
