Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

escrow_open

Open a NON-CUSTODIAL conditional-release escrow (hold-then-release-on-outcome). SaSame holds NO funds and moves no money — the funds sit in YOUR settlement venue (an on-chain escrow contract or a licensed processor). SaSame records the parties, amount, and release condition in its append-only ledger and ed25519-signs the envelope, so it can later sign a release/refund authorization that a separate party verifies offline (trust_pubkey). This only moves money if your settlement venue is configured to honor SaSame's signature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoNoOptional note
unitNoUnit label, e.g. 'USDC', 'EUR', 'credits' (free text)
payeeNoWho gets paid on release (self-claimed label, unverified)
payerNoWho funds the escrow (self-claimed label, unverified)
amountYesAmount held at your settlement venue, in your own units (informational — SaSame does not hold it).
conditionYesThe release condition in plain words, e.g. 'MCP server at X passes audit grade B+' or 'deliverable Y accepted by payer'.
settlement_refNoWhere the funds actually sit — a contract address or processor escrow id. SaSame does not hold them.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states SaSame holds no funds, moves no money, records in an append-only ledger, signs envelopes, and requires external settlement venue configuration. This gives the agent critical safety and dependency information.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words; it efficiently communicates the tool's essence and key behaviors.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While behavioral context is rich, the description lacks any mention of return values or output. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns (e.g., a signature or escrow ID). This is a notable gap for a creation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds system-level context that explains the role of parameters, e.g., amount is informational and settlement_ref is where funds sit, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens a non-custodial conditional-release escrow, specifying the verb 'open' and the resource 'escrow'. It distinguishes from siblings like escrow_attest and escrow_status by emphasizing the creation action and the non-custodial nature.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use (to create a non-custodial escrow) and provides context on how it works, but does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives like escrow_attest for attestation.

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

All SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.

Resources