Inspect and validate an x402 endpoint before an autonomous agent spends USDC.
Purchase a deep, deterministic audit of payment schema, discovery metadata, redirects, CORS, cache, and operational signals. Returns HTTP 402 until the MCP client supplies a valid payment for this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | GET | |
| resource_url | Yes | Public HTTPS x402 resource to inspect without payment credentials. | |
| max_price_usd | No | ||
| expected_network | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cors | Yes | |
| score | Yes | |
| checks | Yes | |
| issues | Yes | |
| payment | Yes | |
| profile | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| evidence | Yes | |
| resource | Yes | |
| discovery | Yes | |
| expiresAt | Yes | |
| requestId | Yes | |
| observedAt | Yes | |
| operational | Yes | |
| claimBoundary | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the non-obvious paywall behavior: 'Returns HTTP 402 until the MCP client supplies a valid payment for this call.' This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though the payment mechanics are not detailed.
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 operational 402 behavior is stated crisply. The first sentence is a dense list but still readable and front-loaded.
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 covers core purpose and the critical paywall behavior, and the output schema/annotations carry return and safety information. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter explanations, so it is not fully complete for selecting and invoking 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 only 25% (only resource_url is described), and the description does not clarify method, max_price_usd, or expected_network. The audit-scope list does not map to these parameters, so the low coverage is not compensated.
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 specifies a concrete action (purchase/audit) on a named resource (x402 endpoint) and enumerates the audited areas: payment schema, discovery metadata, redirects, CORS, cache, and operational signals. However, it does not explicitly contrast with inspect_x402_endpoint or order_x402_remediation, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 for when to prefer audit_x402_endpoint over inspect_x402_endpoint or order_x402_remediation. The only usage-related note is the payment gating condition, which is operational rather than a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Call before spending on an unfamiliar x402 resource. Free, read-only, and never sends payment credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | GET | |
| resource_url | Yes | Public HTTPS x402 resource to inspect without payment credentials. | |
| max_price_usd | No | ||
| expected_network | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cors | Yes | |
| score | Yes | |
| checks | Yes | |
| issues | Yes | |
| payment | Yes | |
| profile | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| evidence | Yes | |
| resource | Yes | |
| discovery | Yes | |
| expiresAt | Yes | |
| requestId | Yes | |
| observedAt | Yes | |
| operational | Yes | |
| claimBoundary | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds that it is free and never sends payment credentials, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.
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 filler. Every phrase carries meaning, from the trigger condition to the safety guarantees.
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 provides solid usage context and safety cues, and an output schema exists, but the meaning of optional parameters is left entirely to schema patterns and enums, so completeness is adequate but gapped.
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 descriptions cover only resource_url (25%); the description does not explain method, max_price_usd, or expected_network, so an agent gets no added semantic guidance for three of four parameters.
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 action (inspect an x402 endpoint) and the context (before spending on an unfamiliar resource). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools audit_x402_endpoint or order_x402_remediation, so it stops short of full 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?
Provides an explicit trigger condition ('before spending on an unfamiliar x402 resource') and clarifies that it is free and does not send credentials, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Purchase a durable remediation intake after a failed audit. Creates an order but never deploys, signs, or spends automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| contact | No | ||
| language | No | en | |
| constraints | No | ||
| callback_url | No | ||
| resource_url | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | both |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| review | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| orderId | Yes | |
| payment | Yes | |
| request | Yes | |
| service | Yes | |
| acceptedAt | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| persistence | Yes | |
| claimBoundary | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial context by stating it 'never deploys, signs, or spends automatically', clarifying the boundary of side effects beyond what the annotations convey. It does not, however, describe any required authentication or error behaviors, but the added constraint is valuable.
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 concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and immediately clarify a critical limitation. Every phrase earns its place with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool has seven parameters, two of which are required, and an output schema is present. The description covers the main intent and a key behavioral constraint, but it omits guidance on how to use any of the parameters or what the response will contain (though the output schema covers the latter). Overall, it is adequate for a simple order-creation workflow but leaves parameter semantics under-specified.
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%, meaning the schema properties have no textual descriptions. The tool description provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., what 'goal' means, how 'constraints' should be formatted, or the purpose of 'callback_url'). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema-level documentation, leaving agents to infer semantics from names alone.
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 ('Purchase a durable remediation intake'), the resource('remediation'), and the context ('after a failed audit'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_x402_endpoint and inspect_x402_endpoint which are involved in auditing/inspection rather than ordering remediation. The clarifying clause 'Creates an order but never deploys, signs, or spends automatically' further narrows its scope.
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 explicitly ties usage to the occurrence of a failed audit, giving a clear trigger condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of audit_x402_endpoint when...') nor state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
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.
audit_x402_endpointinspect_x402_endpointorder_x402_remediationClaiming 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!
Verify x402 payment endpoints before an AI agent pays: scam scan, on-chain checks, trust scores.
We buy from x402 endpoints with real USDC and publish delivery outcomes. Check before you spend.
Live x402 endpoint trust/diligence check before you pay it. $0.02/call via x402.
Pre-execution safety layer for autonomous agent wallets via MCP and x402.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: inspect is free and read-only, audit is a paid deep diagnostic, and order_remediation is a separate purchase flow after an audit. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_x402_object pattern: audit_x402_endpoint, inspect_x402_endpoint, and order_x402_remediation. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the naming convention is uniform.
Three tools is an appropriate, focused scope for an x402 preflight server. Each tool represents a distinct stage in the workflow without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The core workflow is covered: inspect before spending, audit for a deep check, and order remediation after a failed audit. Minor gaps exist around order status or remediation fulfillment, but the essential preflight lifecycle is complete.