Authenticated hosted Streamable HTTP MCP server for crypto data routing through PubFi capability and gateway tools.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities.get retrieves a single contract by ID, capabilities.list enumerates the full catalog, and route.execute runs a specific path. No overlapping or ambiguous boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: pubfi.<resource>.<action>. The verbs (get, list, execute) are clear and the dotted namespace is used uniformly.
Three tools is on the lean side but appropriate for a focused capability registry and execution server. The set covers the core operations without unnecessary bloat.
The surface provides list, get, and execute, which covers inspection and invocation for the registry. Missing create/update/delete suggests administrative functions are intentionally out of scope, a minor gap that doesn't hinder primary use.
pubfi.capabilities.getAReturn the full typed request, response, metering, and readiness contract for one exact capability id from the installed Registry generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability_id | Yes | Exact capability id returned by pubfi.capabilities.list. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| manifest | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| generation | Yes | |
| compiled_at | Yes | |
| observed_at | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what kind of contract is returned (request, response, metering, readiness) and the registry generation context, giving a clearer behavioral picture without contradicting annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action and delivers all key information without redundancy or filler.
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?
With one well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and return semantics. There are no obvious gaps for a simple lookup tool.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter, including pattern, length, and that it must be an exact id from pubfi.capabilities.list. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 due to 100% schema coverage applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: a full typed request/response/metering/readiness contract for one exact capability id. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'pubfi.capabilities.list' and 'pubfi.route.execute' by emphasizing the exact contract lookup rather than enumeration or execution.
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 phrase 'one exact capability id' implies the tool is used when a specific capability id is already known, likely after calling pubfi.capabilities.list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pubfi.capabilities.listAEnumerate the complete installed Registry v2 catalog as deterministic compact pages. The server does not rank, infer intent, or choose a capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum compact capability summaries to return. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque generation-bound cursor returned by the preceding page. | |
| method | No | ||
| provider_key | No | Optional exact public provider key. This is a static filter, not semantic search. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| filters | Yes | |
| manifest | Yes | |
| generation | Yes | |
| compiled_at | Yes | |
| next_cursor | No | |
| observed_at | Yes | |
| capabilities | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| total_capability_count | Yes | |
| matching_capability_count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds that results are deterministic, compact, and not ranked or filtered by intent. This provides useful context for an agent deciding whether to page through results and whether the order is meaningful.
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 first sentence delivers the core action, and the second sentence proactively erases a common misunderstanding about ranking. Every clause contributes value.
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 what is enumerated, the deterministic pagination behavior, and the lack of ranking, which is sufficient for a list tool with a provided output schema. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, nothing critical is missing.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters, including provider_key as a static filter. The tool description does not add parameter details, but reinforces that no ranking/intent is applied, which aligns with provider_key's 'static filter' note. The 'method' parameter remains undocumented, leaving a minor gap in a 75%-covered schema.
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 immediately states the tool lists the complete installed Registry v2 catalog, using the specific verb 'Enumerate.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing deterministic compact pages and the server's non-ranking behavior, which separates it from search/execution tools.
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?
It clearly implies when to use: when you need a full, deterministic enumeration of capabilities. The note that the server does not rank or infer intent suggests this is not for semantic queries, implicitly directing agents to alternatives like pubfi.route.execute for intent-based routing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pubfi.route.executeAExecute one exact GET or POST path through the same Registry v2 matcher, credential authority, and typed executor as the HTTP gateway. Append :free to a published free route and use the same authenticated API-key lane for account-level rate- and total-limited execution without Credit charging. Otherwise use the authenticated account lane with metering or the accountless x402 payment metadata lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Exact optional ASCII request-body bytes. For JSON routes, supply one compact serialized JSON document rather than a nested MCP argument value. | |
| query | No | Exact ASCII raw query string without a leading question mark. | |
| method | Yes | ||
| raw_path | Yes | Exact original URI path consumed by the Registry matcher. Segments use canonical unreserved ASCII only; percent escapes, dot segments, query, fragment, and backslash are forbidden. | |
| request_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: lane-specific metering behavior, credit charge avoidance for free routes, and authentication requirements. This exceeds the annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence defines the core action and scope; the second provides lane-specific usage details. Every phrase earns its place, making this concise yet information-dense.
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?
With an output schema present, return values do not need description. The description covers the execution model, lane selection, and authentication context, which is sufficient for a complex execution tool. It does not specify failure behavior (e.g., unknown routes) but the combination of annotations and schema covers most operational needs.
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 50% (raw_path, body, query have descriptions; method, request_id, idempotency_key do not). The description adds semantic detail about the ':free' suffix for raw_path and mentions 'compact serialized JSON document' for body, but does not explain request_id or idempotency_key. It contributes some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb 'execute' and identifies the exact resource: 'one exact GET or POST path through the same Registry v2 matcher, credential authority, and typed executor as the HTTP gateway.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that list capabilities, making the purpose 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?
The description provides clear contextual guidance on execution lanes: append ':free' for free routes, use the authenticated API-key lane for account-level rate/total-limited execution, or the accountless x402 payment lane. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling tools are clearly capability queries, so execution context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!
