为 AI 智能体提供基于 TON Blockchain 的 Zero-Auth 加密公证与证据层。
🌐 协议网站 • 📖 OpenAPI 规范 • 📱 Telegram 机器人
这是 ProofCore Protocol 的官方 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 服务器。
它允许 AI 助手（如 Claude、Curor 和 Windsurf）主动将其输出（代码审计、法律协议、服务器日志）以加密方式直接封存到 The Open Network (TON) Blockchain 上。
通过使用此服务器，你的 AI 智能体可以在数学上证明其输出在特定时间戳已经存在，并且事后未被篡改或产生幻觉。
Related MCP server: DocImprint
seal_content(content: str, title: str)
通过 SHA-256 对提供的文本进行哈希，并将其排队等待在 TON Blockchain 上进行 Merkle Tree 批处理。返回不可变的引用徽章和 Ed25519 签名。
get_proof_status(deal_id: str)
获取先前已封存记录的加密清单、Merkle 路径和 TON 交易哈希。
verify_content(deal_id: str, content: str)
智能体到智能体验证： 以编程方式验证已封存的记录。重新计算内容哈希，检查 Ed25519 公证签名，并确认 TON 锚定状态。
get_public_key()
返回 ProofCore 服务器的 Ed25519 公钥，用于离线签名验证。
你不需要 API 密钥即可使用 ProofCore。它采用严格的 Zero-Auth 机制。
将以下内容添加到你的 claude_desktop_config.json：
{
"mcpServers": {
"proofcore": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["proofcore-mcp"]
}
}
}打开 Curor Settings -> Features -> MCP
点击 + Add new MCP Server
选择类型 command
名称：proofcore
命令：uvx proofcore-mcp
只需告诉你的 AI：
"审计这份 Solidity 合约，并将最终结论以加密方式封存到链上。"
"起草一份 Alice 和 Bob 之间的 NDA，然后通过 ProofCore 进行公证。"
"记录 UUID 的区块链状态是什么？"
（新）M2M 验证： "这里有一份报告和一个记录 ID UUID。请使用 ProofCore 验证其真实性和签名。"
AI 将自动调用该工具，对文档进行锚定/验证，并为你提供验证链接！
ProofCore 建立在这样的理念之上："不要信任公证人，亲自验证证明。"
每个已封存的文档都会返回一个引用链接（例如 https://proofcore.org/app/<UUID>）。
任何人都可以访问该链接，独立验证以下加密三方匹配：
Local SHA-256 Hash == Manifest Merkle Path == TON Blockchain Transaction Payload
此外，证明是 100% 自主的。
用户可以下载 离线证据包（ZIP），其中包含原始资产、JSON 清单以及独立的 Python/HTML 验证脚本。即使 ProofCore 服务器离线，你的加密证明仍然可以在数学上直接针对 TON Blockchain 进行验证。
"不要信任 ProofCore。亲自验证证明。"
根据 MIT License 分发。
Fetches cryptographic manifest and TON transaction status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fetches', implying a read operation, but offers no details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe or what it might affect. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates return-format expectations but not behavioral traits.
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, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is so minimal that it misses critical context; nevertheless, its structure is concise and free of 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks any explanation of the parameter, does not characterize the expected output semantically, and provides no usage context. The agent is left without essential information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 must explain the parameter. It fails to mention deal_id, its purpose, format, or how it relates to the cryptographic manifest and TON transaction status. An agent cannot infer what value to supply without external knowledge.
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 it fetches cryptographic manifest and TON transaction status, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, though the operations are inherently different (seal, verify, get public key vs. status). Thus it meets the 'specific verb+resource' but falls short of explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like seal_content or verify_content. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended context, or conditions for use. The description only states the act, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the ProofCore server's Ed25519 public key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behaviors. For a simple public key retrieval, this is minimal but not misleading.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema and the absence of parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. No missing contextual information.
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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.
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 verb ('Returns') and the specific resource ('ProofCore server's Ed25519 public key'). It distinguishes itself from siblings which handle sealing, status, and 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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's name and nature, but the description does not tell the agent under what circumstances it should be invoked versus the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cryptographically seals text/code/audits onto the TON Blockchain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | AI Audit Report | |
| content | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No | mcp-agent |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a permanent, cryptographic action but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., private key, network availability), potential side effects, reversibility, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a blockchain-mutating tool.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action with no fluff. It is well-structured for readability, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly under-specified.
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 tool that seals content onto a blockchain, this description is notably incomplete. It lacks explanation of expected inputs beyond a vague hint, does not describe what happens after sealing (e.g., proof generation), and omits operational context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to cover essential behavioral and parameter context.
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 must compensate. It hints at 'text/code/audits' which maps to the content parameter, but it does not clarify the purpose or meaning of title and agent_id, nor their defaults. This leaves agents without sufficient understanding of all inputs.
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 action (seals) on a specific resource (text/code/audits onto the TON Blockchain). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_proof_status, verify_content, and get_public_key by indicating a write operation. However, 'seals' is somewhat metaphorical and could be more precise about the exact operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings or when not to use it. The description merely states what it does without any context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Programmatically verify a sealed deal (Agent-to-Agent). Checks hash match and Ed25519 signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| deal_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the core behavioral mechanism: hash match and Ed25519 signature verification. It does not cover failure behavior or side effects, but the output schema likely handles return details.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides the key verification details.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and mechanism. However, it lacks explicit parameter meanings and usage context, leaving noticeable 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain deal_id or content beyond their self-evident names. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 ('verify'), identifies the resource ('a sealed deal'), and states the exact mechanism ('Checks hash match and Ed25519 signature'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as seal_content and get_proof_status.
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 phrase 'verify a sealed deal' implies the use case, and 'Agent-to-Agent' adds context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
get_public_keyverify_contentv0.1.1get_proof_statusseal_contentEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: sealing, status checking, verification, and key retrieval. No two tools overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (seal_content, get_proof_status, verify_content, get_public_key). The naming is predictable and uniform across the set.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly focused on its core purpose of sealing and verifying content. Each tool is essential and contributes to a complete workflow without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: sealing content, checking its status, verifying, and obtaining the public key for verification. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.
Privacy-first document verification anchored to the public ledger.
Prove your AI work existed first: timestamped, Bitcoin-anchored. Free, no account.
AI document intelligence: extract, summarize, claim-check, notarize, and signed action receipts.
Timestamp & verify evidence on-chain, free. Proofpack: a portable BEEF+BUMP proof bundle per txid.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ProofCore-Protocol/proofcore-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
