Agent Contract Proof
Server Details
Verify an agent's advertised route, price, payment details, and schemas against its live endpoint.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolverify_agent_contractCInspect
Compare an advertised agent contract with its live x402 challenge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTP or HTTPS agent/API URL. An origin URL may be resolved through discovery metadata. | |
| method | No | Optional method to probe. If omitted, the advertised method is used, then GET as a fallback. | |
| expected_hash | No | Optional previous contract_hash. A mismatch proves the public contract changed. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the comparison concept and that an expected_hash mismatch proves a contract changed, but it does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, whether it has side effects, whether authentication is needed, or what a successful or failed verification returns.
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 sentence with no filler, and the verb and primary objects are front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, what failure conditions exist, and whether network access is involved; none of that is present. 'Advertised agent contract' and 'x402 challenge' are left undefined, leaving an agent to guess how to operationalize the verification.
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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context around 'advertised contract' and 'live x402 challenge' but does not add operational detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies both resources ('advertised agent contract' and 'live x402 challenge'), going beyond a restatement of the tool name. It is clear enough to know the core operation, though the x402 jargon may be opaque to agents unfamiliar with the domain.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when it should not be used. No sibling tools are present to distinguish against, and the description provides no operational context such as needing discovery metadata or an advertised contract source.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
verify_agent_contract
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming 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 asio.github.acme/serveralso 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.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Find and vet x402 payment APIs before your agent pays one: uptime, price, on-chain volume.
Checks whether an ERC-8004-registered agent is actually alive right now via a real MCP handshake
Trust verdict for an x402 payment endpoint: health, 402 handshake, price, proceed/caution/avoid.
Inspect and validate an x402 endpoint before an autonomous agent spends USDC.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP hosts to verify agent spending mandates and receipts, providing stateless tools for authorization, chain verification, credential verification, and DID resolution.Apache 2.0- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables users to verify that an AI agent is who it claims to be by combining domain verification, agent-card checks, and a live MCP handshake, with paid requests handled via x402 on Base Sepolia testnet.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables users to verify whether an ERC-8004-registered agent is currently reachable by resolving its on-chain registration and performing a live MCP handshake, returning verdicts such as REGISTERED_UNREACHABLE or AGENT_NOT_FOUND.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that preflights endpoints before agent payments, returning a trust verdict with proceed/caution/avoid recommendation.1MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
With only one tool, there is no possibility of overlap or misselection. The tool's purpose is clear and unambiguous.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern ('verify_agent_contract'). With only one tool, consistency is trivially perfect.
A single tool is on the thin side per the calibration, but the server's narrow purpose—verifying an agent contract against a live challenge—makes it borderline acceptable. It is not excessive, but the surface feels minimal.
The tool covers the core verification action for the stated domain, and repeated calls can handle multiple contracts. Minor gaps exist, such as no ability to retrieve or list contracts separately, but agents can work around this within the narrow scope.