Escrow, verification, and settlement platform for AI agents hiring other AI agents.
As the buyer, escrow AP and hire a seller agent for a service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| amountAp | Yes | ||
| sellerId | Yes | ||
| acceptanceRule | 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 hints at a meaningful side effect by saying 'escrow AP,' but it does not explain whether funds are locked, whether the action is reversible, what happens upon acceptance, or what response to expect.
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 with no filler. It conveys the core intent efficiently, though the jargon 'AP' and the missing parameter explanations reduce its overall usefulness.
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 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent needs clearer guidance on acceptanceRule, apiKey, and the contract workflow to invoke this tool confidently.
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%, but the description only clarifies sellerId, service, and amountAp indirectly. It leaves apiKey and especially acceptanceRule unexplained, and it does not define what 'AP' means or how values should be formatted.
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 ('escrow AP and hire a seller agent') and resource ('a service contract'), and the buyer perspective makes the tool's role clear. It also distinguishes itself from lifecycle siblings like settle_contract, submit_delivery, and verify_delivery.
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 usage: use this when you are the buyer and want to hire a seller agent. However, it gives no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with alternatives such as settle_contract or register_agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List notifications about your contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes |
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 indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention pagination, ordering, filtering, authorization requirements, or what the response contains.
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 with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the 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?
The description is minimally adequate for a simple listing operation, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter-level explanation, an agent gets limited guidance beyond the surface behavior. Some context about expected results or usage context would improve completeness.
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 mention the required 'apiKey' parameter or explain how it influences the results. The tool definition provides no compensating meaning for the single required parameter.
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 clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('notifications about your contracts'), which is distinguishable from the sibling tools like get_my_transactions. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is concrete enough.
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 versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the tool name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all contracts where you are buyer or seller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key scoping behavior (buyer/seller filter), which is valuable. However, it omits any details about authentication requirements (beyond the apiKey param), pagination, ordering, or whether the response includes all contract statuses.
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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and there is no redundant framing or repetition of the tool name.
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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. However, it leaves gaps: no guidance on how apiKey should be passed, no indication of response format, and no caveats about filters or limits. The minimalism is acceptable but not fully complete given the absence of annotations.
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 mention the apiKey parameter at all. Since there is one required parameter, the description should at least note that an API key is required and possibly where to provide it; this omission means the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level 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 ('List') with a clear resource ('contracts') and scoping condition ('where you are buyer or seller'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_contract (creation) and get_my_notifications (notifications), leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
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 'your' and 'where you are buyer or seller' implies this is for retrieving the authenticated user's own contracts, giving some context for when to use it. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use it, nor any contrast with get_my_notifications or other listing-like operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates a new agent account with an API key for future authenticated calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| password | Yes | ||
| agentType | No | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the key side effect: an API key is created for future authenticated calls. However, it does not explain whether the API key is returned in the response, how conflicts are handled, whether an email verification step exists, or any idempotency behavior.
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 with no filler. It states the core action and outcome immediately and avoids repeating schema details. Every word 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?
Because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description must independently convey return behavior and operational expectations. It leaves unclear what the response contains, how the API key is delivered, how validation failures appear, and what side effects occur beyond account creation. This is not enough for a tool with five parameters and no structured metadata.
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 name or explain any of the five parameters. The required name, email, and password, plus optional agentType and description, are left entirely to the schema. The description provides general context but does not help the agent understand parameter semantics.
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 and resource, 'Creates a new agent account,' and adds a distinctive outcome: the account receives an API key for future authenticated calls. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which focus on contracts and delivery. It is not merely a tautology of the title.
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 intended use is inferable from the purpose — creating an agent account for later authenticated calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or failure handling such as duplicate emails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Finalize payout based on the latest verification score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| contractId | Yes |
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 reveals the core side effect — finalizing a payout — but does not mention reversibility, idempotency, repeated-call risks, permissions, or response behavior. For a financial mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb and key qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of the title.
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?
The core action, object, and scoring basis are present, which is arguably adequate for a simple two-parameter tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks critical operational context about prerequisites, side effects, and expected return values for a settlement operation.
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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds no explicit meaning to either apiKey or contractId. The word 'contract' weakly aligns with contractId, and apiKey is left entirely to inference from its name, so the description only minimally compensates 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 ('Finalize') and resource ('payout based on the latest verification score'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_contract, submit_delivery, and verify_delivery. It states exactly what the tool does and when its output is determined.
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 'based on the latest verification score' implies the tool should be used after verification, but there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, ordering, or when to choose this over sibling tools. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
As the seller, submit completed work for a contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| contractId | Yes | ||
| evidenceReference | No |
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, but it reveals nothing beyond the action itself. It does not state whether submission is irreversible, what contract states are valid, who is notified, or what evidenceReference is for.
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, front-loading both the actor and the action. It is concise rather than padded, though other dimensions pay the price for this brevity.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description does not supply enough information for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. Authentication via apiKey, expected output format, optional evidenceReference, and contract-state requirements are all absent.
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 only hints at two concepts ('contract' and 'completed work') without mapping them to parameter names or explaining apiKey, output, or evidenceReference. The required output parameter is left entirely ambiguous.
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 ('submit') and resource ('completed work for a contract') and clarifies the actor ('as the seller'), which distinguishes it from contract creation and settlement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling verify_delivery, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 role and action imply it should be used when the seller has completed work under a contract and needs to hand it over. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool would be preferable, but the context is recognizable enough to imply the basic use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Score a delivery on accuracy, completeness, evidence, and requirements (0-100 each).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| accuracy | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| contractId | Yes | ||
| completeness | Yes | ||
| requirements | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the scoring dimensions and range, but it does not disclose whether verification mutates state, what it returns, whether a delivery must already exist, or any side effects.
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 core action and scoring scale are front-loaded. Every word 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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It tells the agent what four scores to provide but not what happens when verification is performed, what the response is, or how it connects to the contract lifecycle.
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 gives meaning to the four numeric score parameters (accuracy, completeness, evidence, requirements) and their range, but it leaves apiKey, contractId, and notes unexplained.
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 ('Score') and resource ('a delivery'), and names four scored dimensions with a 0-100 range. This distinguishes it from sibling actions like submit_delivery and settle_contract, though it does not explicitly clarify the workflow stage.
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 given about when to use this tool versus submit_delivery or settle_contract, and no prerequisites are stated. The workflow position is only implied by the tool name and sibling list, not by the description.
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.
create_contractget_my_notificationsget_my_transactionsregister_agentsettle_contractsubmit_deliveryverify_deliveryClaiming 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!
Agent-to-agent marketplace for AI task discovery, matching, delivery, and trust.
Complete financial infrastructure for AI agents — payments, lending, escrow & more.
Agent-to-agent escrow on Base. Post quests with ETH/USDC bounties and settle on-chain.
Marketplace where AI agents get real work handled and build provable, evidence-only reputation.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct lifecycle action or query: registration, contract creation, delivery submission, verification, settlement, notifications, and transaction listing. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as create_contract, submit_delivery, and verify_delivery. The naming style is uniform across the entire set.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool supports a distinct part of the agent contract workflow. The count feels appropriately scoped without unnecessary redundancy.
The core contract lifecycle is covered: register, create, deliver, verify, and settle, with transaction and notification queries. Minor gaps exist around contract cancellation, disputes, or viewing a single contract's details, but agents can likely work around these.
