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.
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 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_pockets for browsing the full catalog, search_pockets for discovery via filters, and pull_content for retrieving actual content. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other, eliminating ambiguity about when to use which.
All three tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_pockets, search_pockets, pull_content) with snake_case. This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a content catalog service. Each tool covers a distinct step (browse, search, retrieve), and no tool is redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the full discovery-to-retrieval workflow: browsing the catalog, searching by criteria, and pulling content. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of accessing licensed content.
list_pocketsAInspectList 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auth requirement (Bearer token), pagination, and that it does not retrieve content. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden.
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?
Four sentences each earn their place: purpose, usage, behavioral boundary, and auth/parameter context. Front-loaded and well-structured.
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?
Covers auth, pagination, filtering, return fields, and contrasts with siblings. No gaps for a simple list tool with optional parameters.
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% and the description adds no substantive parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 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?
Clearly states 'List all available content pockets' and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing search_pockets for specific topics and pull_content for 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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (browse full catalog, filter by creator) and when-not-to-use (prefer search_pockets for topics, pull_content for content retrieval) guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pull_contentAInspectPull 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the Bearer token requirement, the HTTP 401 on unauthenticated requests, the metered charge ($0.001–$0.25), royalty distribution logging, and the return payload with provenance metadata. This is comprehensive and goes beyond typical descriptions.
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 compact paragraph of five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, when to use, when not to use, auth/cost, and return value. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 appropriately explains the return value ('full content payload with provenance metadata including creator attribution and license terms'). It also covers auth, cost, and usage context, making it complete for a tool with this complexity.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats what the schema already provides (e.g., pocket_id is a 24-character hex string) without adding significant new parameter semantics. It does reinforce the source of pocket_id (from search_pockets or list_pockets), but this is also in the 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 opens with 'Pull licensed creator content from a specific pocket by ID,' which is a specific verb+resource+identifier. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating 'Do NOT use for browsing or discovery — use search_pockets or list_pockets instead,' making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when an AI agent needs to retrieve verified, provenance-tracked content for generation, RAG, or training purposes.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT use for browsing or discovery' and names the alternative tools. The authentication prerequisite is also stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_pocketsAInspectSearch 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: requires a Bearer token, returns matching pockets with specific fields (IDs, titles, descriptions, creators, content types, pricing tiers), and does not retrieve content. It lacks some details like error cases, pagination behavior beyond limit, or rate limits, but covers the most critical aspects clearly.
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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides clear guidance on usage and parameters. Each sentence earns its place, though some details (e.g., specific return fields) could be considered slightly verbose. Overall, well-structured and readable without wasting words.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, exclusions, auth requirement, parameter constraints, and return contents. Minor gaps like pagination mechanics or error handling exist, but these are not essential for basic correct invocation, and the context provided is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by specifying natural language acceptable for query, that creator_email is case-insensitive exact match, and clarifies that at least one of query or creator_email must be provided, which is not fully captured in the schema. The limit parameter's default and max are already in the schema, so the description doesn't repeat that, but the 'at least one' constraint is essential added context.
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 a catalog by keyword, creator email, or content category, distinguishing it from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT retrieve content and that pull_content should be used for actual content access. The verb 'Search' plus the resource 'Meta-Stamp Pockets catalog' provides a specific, actionable purpose.
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 says when to use: when an agent needs to discover available licensed content before pulling it, and knows the topic/creator but not the pocket ID. It also states what it does NOT do and directs to pull_content as the alternative, plus notes the requirement of a valid Bearer token and that at least one of query or creator_email must be provided.
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.
First commercial HTTP 402 implementation. AI agents pay $0.0025/pull, creators get 85% automatically. Demo: metastampv3-production.up.railway.app/demo
