What can you do with this server?

Verantis MCP is a read-only assistant that helps AI agents check machine-payable services and recipient wallets before paying anything. * Search the verified directory of x402/MPP services (find_paid_service) with filters: verified-only, reputation score, proven history, price, chain, protocol, category, latency, freshness. * Look up a single service's full record and verification provenance (get_service), including per-rail reputation, price, buyers, volume, and history. * Check a recipient wallet before payment (check_wallet) to see its earned reputation tier, on-chain buyer retention, and which services it fronts — a pre-payment guard. * Get index-level directory statistics (directory_stats): service counts, verification breakdown, and data freshness. * It never moves money, sees keys, or reads files; it only queries the public Verantis API.

How do I use verantis-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@verantis-mcp Check reputation of wallet 0x7a3f... before I pay." That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

verantis-mcp

by m9labs-railscope

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Verantis MCP

The verified directory for machine payments — as an MCP tool.

Install in VS Code PyPI MCP Registry

Give any MCP-capable agent (Claude, Cursor, agent frameworks) the ability to check what it's about to pay before it pays. Verantis continuously probes machine-payable services across x402 and MPP, measures on-chain reputation, and publishes a recomputable record. This server is a thin client of the public Verantis API — standard library only, no dataset needed.

Learn more: verantis.ai · methodology: verantis.ai/methodology

Tools

Tool	What it does
`find_paid_service`	Search the verified directory (x402 / MPP). Filter by verified-only, price, chain, protocol, category, reputation.
`get_service`	Full record + verification provenance for one domain.
`check_wallet`	Pre-payment guard — pass the recipient wallet a service asked you to pay; get its earned reputation tier, on-chain buyer retention, and which services it fronts.
`directory_stats`	Index-level stats: services, verification breakdown, freshness.

Related MCP server: Agent Directory MCP Server

What it can and can't do

Can: read the public directory; check a service or wallet before your agent pays.
Can't: move money, see your keys, or read your files.
Only ever calls api.verantis.ai — nothing else.
Writes nothing (hosted endpoint) / only a random anonymous install id (local pip/uvx).
No account, no API key. MIT-licensed. Read-only.
How we measure: verantis.ai/methodology

Install & connect

Two ways to connect — pick one.

Local (stdio) — via `uvx`, no install step

Claude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json) or any MCP client:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "verantis": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["verantis-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Prefer pip? pip install verantis-mcp, then use "command": "verantis-mcp" with no args.

Cursor (~/.cursor/mcp.json): same block under mcpServers.

Hosted (no install) — connect by URL

VS Code / Copilot: one-click add ▸ — or add it manually below.

For any client that supports remote / streamable-HTTP MCP servers, point it straight at the hosted endpoint — nothing to install, no Python:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "verantis": { "url": "https://api.verantis.ai/mcp" }
  }
}

Clients that only speak local stdio can bridge with npx mcp-remote https://api.verantis.ai/mcp.

Restart your client, and the four tools appear.

Configuration

Env var	Default	Purpose
`VERANTIS_API_BASE`	`https://api.verantis.ai`	Point the client at a different Verantis API.

Notes

Informational only; not financial, investment, or legal advice. Classifications describe what live probes and on-chain reads observed at a point in time and can change. Reputation is earned from real on-chain settlement, not assumed. Verantis has no rail of its own, no token, and no stake in any listed service.

MIT licensed.

Available Tools

4 tools

check_walletA

Read-only

Inspect

Check a recipient wallet BEFORE your agent pays it — a pre-payment guard. Pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay; returns whether Verantis knows the wallet, its EARNED reputation tier, and human-readable reasons. A wallet IS a settlement rail, so the reply names the rail it settles on ('rail': chain + protocols), its host, on-chain buyer retention (distinct buyers, repeat rate, distribution), and the host's OTHER rails ('also_settles_on'). If 'shared_wallet' is true the address fronts many services (a relay/treasury) so the reputation reflects the pool, not one service — treat with care. An unknown or low-reputation recipient is a reason to pause.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pay_to`	Yes	recipient wallet address (0x… for Base/EVM, base58 for Solana)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description expands substantially on what the agent can expect: reputation tier, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, buyer retention, other rails, and the shared_wallet caveat. It also implicitly explains the tool's informational, non-mutating nature by framing it as a guard before payment.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average but front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently packs relevant behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: pre-payment use, return content, rail semantics, shared_wallet hazard, and the risk warning. It could be tightened slightly, but all content is useful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a thorough mental model of what will be returned, including reputation, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, customer-retention metrics, other settlement rails, and the shared_wallet meaning. It is complete for an agent to know exactly when this tool answers and how to interpret its result.

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% for the single pay_to parameter, including format for EVM and Solana addresses. The description adds crucial semantic detail beyond the schema: pay_to is the service-provided settlement address, and the tool will return wallet reputation across settlement rails. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Check a recipient wallet BEFORE your agent pays it — a pre-payment guard.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service and find_paid_service by targeting the wallet of the service, not the service itself. It also states exactly what it returns.

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 gives explicit usage context: pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay and do this before payment. It also gives decision guidance, such as treating shared_wallet results with care and pausing for unknown/low-reputation recipients. It does not explicitly rule out alternative tools, but the sibling tools are not relevant alternatives for wallet checks.

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

directory_statsA

Read-only

Inspect

Index-level statistics: services, verification breakdown, data freshness.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds content details (services, verification breakdown, data freshness) beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but it omits any potential side effects, performance characteristics, or required permissions—though these are less critical for a read-only stats endpoint.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main function and lists key data categories. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: it returns index-level stats about services, verification, and freshness. It could be enhanced by specifying the return format or exact fields, but the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the description has no burden to explain them. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it provides index-level statistics covering services, verification breakdown, and data freshness. The resource (index) and data types are specified, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual services or wallets.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for aggregate statistics ('index-level'), which contrasts with sibling tools for specific lookups, but it does not explicitly advise when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The writer expects the agent to infer from the context.

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

find_paid_serviceA

Read-only

Inspect

Search Verantis's verified directory of machine-payable services (x402, MPP). Results are UNIFIED per service (host): each carries its settlement rails ('rails': base / solana / tempo), and every rail has its OWN reputation, price, and buyer retention — never blended. Pass 'chain' and 'matched_rail' marks that chain's rail so you see the reputation for the rail you'll actually pay on. 'coming_soon' lists advertised chains not yet measured. Prefer verified=true before paying anyone.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	settlement network, e.g. base, solana, polygon, tempo
`limit`	No	maximum number of results to return (default 10)
`query`	Yes	what you need, e.g. 'twitter data', 'web search', 'rpc ethereum'
`protocol`	No	restrict to one payment protocol: x402 or mpp
`min_score`	No	minimum trust score 0-100 — set high (e.g. 85) for money-moving tasks
`proven_only`	No	only services that have EARNED reputation over time (excludes 'new' services and 'watch' services whose on-chain payments are concentrated / not yet broadly distributed). Reputation is earned via consistent history + on-chain buyer retention; a brand-new well-behaved service is verified but new, not top-trust.
`max_price_usd`	No	max price per call in USD
`require_fresh`	No	live re-probe stale results before returning — use before paying real money; adds ~1s per stale service
`verified_only`	No	only services that passed the latest live probe
`max_latency_ms`	No	reject services slower than this (ms)
`exclude_concentrated`	No	exclude services from operators with many listings under one registrable owner (a neutral concentration signal, not a fraud claim)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral details: results are unified per host, each rail carries separate reputation/price/retention, and 'coming_soon' lists unmeasured chains. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate output semantics. No contradiction detected.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is roughly 100 words and each sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical result-structure context, and ends with a practical recommendation. While slightly dense, it is well-organized and not bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the result structure (unified per host, per-rail metrics, coming_soon). It also covers the important caveat about verified status. Given the schema covers all parameters and the tool is a search, the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 each parameter having a description. The description adds extra meaning for 'chain' (explains matched_rail and per-rail reputation) and for 'verified_only' (advisory to prefer verified true). This exceeds the schema baseline, providing richer guidance for key parameters, though not all 11 are individually expanded.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Verantis's verified directory of machine-payable services'. It distinguishes from siblings: get_service likely retrieves a specific service, directory_stats likely provides statistics, and check_wallet likely checks wallet info. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 offers practical guidance: 'Prefer verified=true before paying anyone' and explains how to use 'chain' to see reputation for the actual payment rail. It implies this is the directory search tool but does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., when to use get_service for a known host). Clear usage context is present, but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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

get_serviceA

Read-only

Inspect

Full unified record for one service host: every settlement rail it accepts on, each with its own reputation, price, buyers, volume and history, plus coming-soon chains. Pass the host (domain).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	the service host / domain to look up, e.g. api.nansen.ai

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by mentioning returning a record. It adds detail about the content but no new behavioral caveats.

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 succinct, two sentences, with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter usage.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and the required parameter. It does not mention return format, errors, or pagination, but for a simple record retrieval this is likely sufficient given the domain is well-defined.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The single parameter 'domain' is clearly explained as the host/domain to look up, and the description reinforces this with an example (api.nansen.ai). The schema also provides a description, so meaning is fully covered.

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 returns a full unified record for a service, listing specific details like settlement rails, reputation, price, buyers, volume, and coming-soon chains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_paid_service or directory_stats.

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?

It provides parameter usage ('Pass the host (domain)') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is specific enough that an agent would infer when to call it.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

2 tool updatesv0.2.1Aug 19, 2026
- Changedfind_paid_service2 fields changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"maximum number of results to return (default 10)"
```
  - addedInput schema / properties / protocol / description
```
Added value: +"restrict to one payment protocol: x402 or mpp"
```
- Changedget_service1 field changed
  - addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
```
Added value: +"the service host / domain to look up, e.g. api.nansen.ai"
```
4 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026
- First observedcheck_wallet
- First observeddirectory_stats
- First observedfind_paid_service
- First observedget_service

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The four tools have distinct purposes: get_service retrieves a single service's unified record, find_paid_service searches the directory, directory_stats provides index-level statistics, and check_wallet is a pre-payment guard. There is slight overlap between get_service and find_paid_service (both return service records), but the descriptions clarify that one is for a specific host and the other is for search.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_service, find_paid_service, directory_stats, check_wallet. The pattern is mostly consistent, though directory_stats uses a noun_noun structure rather than a verb_noun one, which is a minor deviation.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying service reputation and wallet safety. The count is slightly on the lower end but each tool serves a distinct function, and the domain is narrow enough that 4 tools feel appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: searching services, getting detailed records, checking wallets, and viewing index stats. However, there are no tools for actions like registering a service, updating reputation, or managing verification, which could be gaps if the server is meant to support the full lifecycle. For a read-only query server, the coverage is adequate.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Atinamos Agent Shop A
uk.co.atinamos
Machine-service catalogue, payment hand-off and free market discovery for autonomous AI agents.
Autonomous Agents Payments & Billing E-commerce & Retail
51
agent-market-network B
io.github.jdhart81
Signed agent discovery, security attestations, paid work, and verified settlement reputation.
Autonomous Agents Blockchain
232
clearhouse A
sh.clearhouse
One search across every agent registry: 100K+ MCP/A2A/x402 services, signed receipts.
51
Waggle
zone.waggle
Discover, search, invoke, and rate A2A (Agent-to-Agent) protocol agents.
Agent Orchestration Search
2

Related MCP Servers

agent-tools-mcp
Agent Orchestration Search
JoursBleu
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables MCP-compatible agents to discover and call x402 paid services from a directory of over 2,000 APIs.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-05-29 04:42 UTC)
Apache 2.0
Agent Directory MCP Server
Agent Orchestration Search
AiAgentKarl
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to discover, register, and rate services in a decentralized agent-to-agent directory.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-03 16:05 UTC)
7
MIT
AgentBodega MCPofficial
Blockchain Cryptocurrency
agentbodegastore
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables agents to search and inspect live service offerings, generate x402 payment snippets, and understand blockchain-only balance policies.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-09 02:56 UTC)
4
80
3
MIT
tradex
Cryptocurrency Blockchain AI & Machine Learning
benz16107
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables agents to discover and pay for AI services per call via USDC on Solana, supporting marketplace search, listing details, on-chain reputation, wallet info, and paid calls.
Updated 6 days ago (2026-08-31 15:50 UTC)
9
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/m9labs-railscope/verantis-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

Verantis MCP

Tools

What it can and can't do

Install & connect

Local (stdio) — via uvx, no install step

Hosted (no install) — connect by URL

Configuration

Notes

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

AgentBodega MCPofficial

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

Local (stdio) — via `uvx`, no install step