Trust verdict for an x402 payment endpoint: health, 402 handshake, price, proceed/caution/avoid.
One free call before your agent pays.
Probes the URL (no wallet, payment, or auth) and returns a trust-preview.v1 verdict: liveness and latency, TLS validity, the 402 payment handshake with protocol detection (x402 v1/v2, MPP-capable), detected networks/asset/price with a USD estimate, ERC-8004 identity binding with Sybil-filtered reputation for the payee (which can adjust the recommendation), and a proceed / caution / avoid recommendation with human-readable reasons. Paid-tier fields (uptime history, reseller analysis) are present but null on the free tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute https URL of the x402 or MPP payment endpoint to check |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the call is free, requires no wallet/payment/auth, is a non-destructive probe, and mentions that paid-tier fields are null on the free tier. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error handling.
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 key idea ('One free call before your agent pays') and then systematically lists the verdict contents. It's slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.
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 an output schema, so return format is covered. The description additionally explains the output fields, mentions free-tier null fields, and covers the use case. It lacks explicit mentions of error cases or rate limits, but given the simplicity (single param) it's sufficiently complete.
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%, but the description adds context: it specifies the URL must be 'absolute https URL of the x402 or MPP payment endpoint to check', which clarifies the expected format and purpose beyond the generic schema description.
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?
States a specific verb ('probes') and resource ('URL') and clarifies that it's a trust check before payment. The description explains exactly what it returns (trust-preview.v1 verdict) and distinguishes it as a preflight, which is clear and unambiguous.
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 explicit context for when to use it ('One free call before your agent pays') and what it does (probes without wallet/payment/auth). No siblings exist, so alternatives aren't needed, but it clearly frames the usage scenario.
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.
preflightClaiming 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.
Verify x402 payment endpoints before an AI agent pays: scam scan, on-chain checks, trust scores.
Trust layer for the x402 economy - check any service before you pay. Scores, discovery, routing.
Inspect and validate an x402 endpoint before an autonomous agent spends USDC.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there are no overlapping purposes or selection ambiguity. The single 'preflight' tool is clearly the only action the server exposes.
The tool name 'preflight' is short, descriptive, and aligns with the server name 'preflight402'. Since there is only one tool, no naming convention conflict exists.
A single tool is at the low end of the scale and makes the server feel thin, but the tool is substantive and narrowly scoped to a preflight probe. It is borderline rather than clearly excessive or inadequate.
For the stated purpose of providing a free preflight trust verdict, the tool covers the core workflow comprehensively: liveness, latency, TLS, payment protocol detection, pricing, identity binding, reputation, and a recommendation. Paid-tier fields are intentionally nullable rather than missing operations, so there are no obvious dead ends.