Independent health, price and history for x402/MPP endpoints. Metered over x402; free grade on web.
The Machine Commerce Observatory: independent readings of x402 and MPP endpoints — alive right now, quoting what, and how fast? Probed at arm's length on a fixed clock, every reading traceable to a retained capture. Blocked and rate-limited are told apart from unreachable at capture time, so a defended endpoint is never reported as dead. Not affiliated with any endpoint graded. Call before paying an unfamiliar endpoint, or to check whether one you use has repriced or rotated its payTo. This tool is the FREE grade: current observation plus 7 days of counts. The same record our published reports are written from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | probe402 endpoint id, from the free /coverage list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the independent probe methodology, fixed-clock timing, retained captures, the distinction between blocked/rate-limited and unreachable, and the non-affiliation stance. This is unusually transparent and goes far beyond a generic read-only claim.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then builds trust with methodology, use cases, and scope. It is slightly promotional and longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes meaningful 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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential scope, behavior, and usage context. It does not enumerate the exact grade fields returned, but an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly based on the given 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 schema already covers the single endpoint_id parameter with a useful description ('from the free /coverage list'), so the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, syntax, or example.
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 identifies the tool as an independent grade for x402/MPP endpoints, reporting current liveness, quote, speed, and a 7-day count. It is specific about the resource and output, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling probe402_endpoint_history, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 concrete trigger conditions: call before paying an unfamiliar endpoint, or to check whether an endpoint has repriced or rotated its payTo. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or when to prefer the sibling history tool, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The Machine Commerce Observatory: independent readings of x402 and MPP endpoints — alive right now, quoting what, and how fast? Probed at arm's length on a fixed clock, every reading traceable to a retained capture. Blocked and rate-limited are told apart from unreachable at capture time, so a defended endpoint is never reported as dead. Not affiliated with any endpoint graded. Call before paying an unfamiliar endpoint, or to check whether one you use has repriced or rotated its payTo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | probe402 endpoint id, from the free /coverage list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with readOnlyHint true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: independent probing at arm's length on a fixed clock, retained captures for traceability, and deliberate distinction between blocked/rate-limited vs unreachable so defended endpoints are not reported as dead. It also discloses non-affiliation with graded endpoints.
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 longer than strictly necessary, with branding ('The Machine Commerce Observatory') and a rhetorical question, but every substantive sentence adds a useful caveat or usage context. It is somewhat front-loaded with the core value proposition and then gives interpretation and call guidance.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the meaning of the readings, how to interpret failures, and when to call. It does not explicitly describe the output shape or historical time range implied by 'history,' but the essential selection and invocation information is present.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents endpoint_id as 'probe402 endpoint id, from the free /coverage list.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly conveys that the tool provides independent, current readings of x402/MPP endpoints — alive status, quote, and speed — and can be used to detect payTo changes. It is distinct from the grading sibling by explicitly stating it is not affiliated with any endpoint graded, though it never directly states 'returns historical readings for endpoint_id'.
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?
It gives explicit use cases: 'Call before paying an unfamiliar endpoint, or to check whether one you use has repriced or rotated its payTo.' It does not explicitly name the sibling tool as the alternative for grading, so the when-not-to-use guidance is incomplete.
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.
probe402_endpoint_gradeprobe402_endpoint_historyClaiming 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!
Live x402 endpoint trust/diligence check before you pay it. $0.02/call via x402.
Check what a paid x402 endpoint or MCP server delivered, from probes anyone can repeat.
Independent uptime oracle for the x402 agent economy. Free probes, paid history via USDC on Base.
Measured x402 ecosystem data, facilitator reliability, and live endpoint checks.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools are named differently (grade vs history), but their descriptions are almost identical, with only one sentence distinguishing the grade tool. An agent would struggle to determine which tool provides the needed historical or current data without guessing.
Both tools follow the same probe402_endpoint_<noun> pattern, making the naming clear, consistent, and predictable. The only difference is the final noun, which directly conveys the tool's purpose.
With only two tools, the server feels thin but is still plausible for a focused observatory service. The count is on the borderline of being too small, though it may cover the core need of current grading and historical review.
The domain is narrowly scoped to endpoint grading, and the two tools cover current observations and history. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of an explicit comparison or alerting tool, but the core workflow appears covered.