Skip to main content
Glama

tollbooth-sample

by io.github.lonniev

weather_check_proof_status

Check whether a previously-cached dpop_token is still valid.

Mirrors check_oauth_status for the npub-proof flow: a calling agent can ask "will my next paid call accept this dpop_token?" before burning credits on a guaranteed failure.

Free, no side effects — does not evict the cache or touch relays.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The dpop_token phrase returned by ``request_npub_proof`` / ``receive_npub_proof``.
patron_npubNoRequired. The patron's npub (npub1...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly states the tool is free, has no side effects, and does not evict the cache or touch relays. This provides good behavioral insight, though it could mention whether authentication is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: four sentences covering purpose, context, usage scenario, and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and an output schema (unknown content), the description provides reasonable completeness. It covers the core function, utility, and side effects. It could elaborate on what 'valid' means or error handling, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking validity of a cached dpop_token. It distinguishes itself from the similar check_oauth_status by specifying it's for the npub-proof flow, which differentiates it among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: before a paid call to avoid burning credits on a failure. It also mentions that it mirrors check_oauth_status, implying the alternative for other authentication flows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All tollbooth-sample toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, and the few similar pairs (e.g., check_balance vs check_authority_balance, account_statement vs account_statement_infographic) are well-differentiated by their descriptions. However, some overlapping concepts like forget_credentials vs delete_patron_credential/delete_operator_credential could still cause misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

All tools share the misleading 'weather_' prefix, which does not reflect their actual domain (billing, credentials, coupons, notarization). Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (check_balance, list_coupons) with noun-ish names (account_statement, current, forecast) and varied verbs (get, list, check, request, receive, update, delete, forget, mint, redeem, etc.).

Tool Count1/5

With 52 tools, this is an extremely large surface for a sample server. Even though the domain is broad, this count far exceeds the typical well-scoped MCP server and creates unnecessary complexity for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tollbooth/billing domain is well-covered: credit purchasing, coupons, credentials, proofs, pricing models, notarization, and operator/patron status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no single-coupon getter, no direct patron list), but core workflows have no dead ends. The weather aspect is thin with only three tools, but that seems intentional as an example paid service.

Resources