Meta-Stamp Pockets
Server Details
The first commercial implementation of HTTP 402 Payment Required for creator content monetization. AI agents pay $0.0025 per content pull from paywalled creator libraries. Patent-pending micropayment infrastructure — creators get paid automatically.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_pockets for browsing, search_pockets for discovery, and pull_content for retrieval. Descriptions explicitly differentiate them and guide appropriate usage, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_pockets, pull_content, search_pockets. The naming is predictable and uniformly structured.
With three tools covering listing, searching, and pulling, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of accessing licensed content. No extraneous or missing tools for this focus.
The tool surface provides a complete workflow for content consumption: discover (search, list), retrieve (pull). Missing create/update are likely out of scope for a consumer-facing server, so no dead ends.
Available Tools
3 toolslist_pocketsAInspect
List all available content pockets in the Meta-Stamp Pockets catalog, optionally filtered by creator. Use this tool when an AI agent needs to browse the full catalog or see everything available from a specific creator. Prefer search_pockets when looking for specific topics. Does NOT retrieve content — use pull_content with the returned pocket_id to access actual content. Requires a valid Bearer token. Optional creator_id parameter filters results to a single creator's pockets. Returns a paginated list of pockets with IDs, titles, descriptions, creators, content types, and pricing tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return per page. Defaults to 50, maximum 200 for catalog browsing. | |
| creator_id | No | Optional filter to show only pockets from a specific creator. Use the creator's unique identifier. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements ('Requires a valid Bearer token'), read-only nature (listing), and return format (paginated list with fields). However, it does not detail pagination mechanics (e.g., cursor or offset), which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.
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 5 sentences, covering purpose, usage, differentiation, requirements, and return details. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While not overly verbose, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. Good structure overall.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (IDs, titles, descriptions, creators, content types, pricing tiers). It covers purpose, usage, auth, parameters, and returns. However, it omits pagination metadata details, which are important for a list endpoint. Still fairly complete for the complexity level.
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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description mostly restates the schema (e.g., 'Optional creator_id parameter filters results to a single creator's pockets'). It adds no significant new meaning, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists all available content pockets, optionally filtered by creator. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'Prefer search_pockets when looking for specific topics' and 'Does NOT retrieve content — use pull_content.' This provides specific verb+resource and differentiation.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when an AI agent needs to browse the full catalog or see everything available from a specific creator. Prefer search_pockets when looking for specific topics.' It also indicates when to use pull_content for content retrieval, covering both when to use and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pull_contentAInspect
Pull licensed creator content from a specific pocket by ID. Use this tool when an AI agent needs to retrieve verified, provenance-tracked content for generation, RAG, or training purposes. Do NOT use for browsing or discovery — use search_pockets or list_pockets instead. Requires a valid Bearer token for authentication; unauthenticated requests return HTTP 401. Successful pulls trigger a metered charge ($0.001–$0.25 depending on content tier) and the transaction is logged for creator royalty distribution. The pocket_id parameter is a 24-character hex string identifying the specific content pocket to pull from. Returns the full content payload with provenance metadata including creator attribution and license terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional natural language focus query used to narrow or contextualize the returned content within the selected pocket. | |
| pocket_id | Yes | The 24-character hex identifier of the content pocket to pull from. Obtain this from search_pockets or list_pockets results. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses authentication requirement (Bearer token), unauthenticated response (HTTP 401), metered charge ($0.001–$0.25), royalty logging, and return content with provenance metadata. No annotations exist, so description fully covers behavioral traits.
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?
Description is moderately sized, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but no redundancy.
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?
Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, authentication, pricing, parameter details, and return value. Lacks exact structure of returned data but sufficient for agent decision.
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 descriptions cover both parameters, but description adds value by specifying pocket_id format (24-character hex) and source, and clarifying query's purpose as optional focus to contextualize content. Minimal but useful addition.
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 clearly states the action 'Pull licensed creator content from a specific pocket by ID', specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by instructing to use search_pockets or list_pockets for browsing/discovery.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('retrieve verified, provenance-tracked content for generation, RAG, or training purposes') and when not to use ('Do NOT use for browsing or discovery'), with direct alternative tools named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_pocketsAInspect
Search the Meta-Stamp Pockets catalog by keyword, creator email, or content category. Use this tool when an AI agent needs to discover available licensed content before pulling it. Ideal for finding relevant pockets when the agent knows what topic or creator it needs but not the specific pocket ID. Does NOT retrieve content — use pull_content with the returned pocket_id to access actual content. Requires a valid Bearer token. The query parameter accepts natural language search terms or category keywords; the creator_email parameter restricts results to a single creator by their email address. Provide at least one of query or creator_email. Returns matching pockets with their IDs, titles, descriptions, creators, content types, and pricing tiers. Use the limit parameter to control page size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return per page. Defaults to 10, maximum 50 for search results. | |
| query | No | Natural language search terms or category keywords to find matching content pockets. Optional when creator_email is provided. | |
| content_type | No | Optional filter to show only pockets in a specific content category or source type, such as 'youtube', 'webpage', 'video', 'text', 'image', or 'audio'. | |
| creator_email | No | Optional filter to show only pockets created by the creator with this email address. Case-insensitive exact match on the email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirement ('Requires a valid Bearer token'), lists return fields (IDs, titles, descriptions, creators, content types, pricing tiers), and mentions pagination via limit. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits but adds value beyond the schema.
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?
Description is a well-structured single paragraph, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers authentication, return fields, constraints, and usage hints. It explains the types of content filters and pagination. Could mention sorting or behavior on empty results, but overall complete for a search 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?
Schema already has 100% coverage with accurate descriptions. The description adds semantics: query accepts natural language or category keywords, creator_email is case-insensitive exact match, content_type lists examples, and limit maximum 50. Also adds the constraint that at least one of query or creator_email must be provided.
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 clearly states the tool searches the catalog by keyword, creator email, or content category. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'Does NOT retrieve content — use pull_content with the returned pocket_id' and implies it's for discovery before retrieval.
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?
Explicit usage context: 'when an AI agent needs to discover available licensed content before pulling it' and 'Ideal for finding relevant pockets when the agent knows what topic or creator it needs but not the specific pocket ID.' Also provides a constraint: 'Provide at least one of query or creator_email.'
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.
Discussions
First commercial HTTP 402 implementation. AI agents pay $0.0025/pull, creators get 85% automatically. Demo: metastampv3-production.up.railway.app/demo