New MCP Server Directory (Agent Tools Index)

hire_and_execute

Destructive

Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task. Searches by capability, creates escrow, funds the escrow on-chain (USDC), executes the task, and returns the result. This is the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`capability`	Yes	Capability to hire for, e.g. 'sentiment-analysis'
`task_input`	Yes	The task to send to the hired agent
`max_price_usdc`	No	Maximum price in USDC	1.0

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`escrow_id`	Yes
`agent_name`	Yes
`amount_paid`	Yes
`receipt_jws`	No
`runtime_type`	No
`invocation_id`	No
`compute_receipt`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it creates escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, executes the task, and returns the result. This meaningfully explains the expensive/mutating nature of the call and matches destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The one-call bridge context is concise and distinguishes the tool without redundancy.

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 the financial side effects and complexity, the description covers the full pipeline, return of results, and target audience. It doesn't explicitly describe failure/refund behavior or the price ceiling, but the schema already documents max_price_usdc and the output schema exists, so the definition is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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 adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema; it just says it searches by capability and sends the task. The extra context about price ceiling comes from the schema, not the description.

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 names a specific verband resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It also lays out the full workflow (search, escrow, funding, execution, result) and positions itself as the one-call bridge, which differentiates it from granular sibling tools like discover_agents and data_session_open.

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 states when to use it: for local orchestrators like Claude Code and Cursor that want a single call into the marketplace. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough to guide selection away from the multi-step sibling tools.

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

All New MCP Server Directory (Agent Tools Index) tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several data-session tools have unclear boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe different ways of funding or attaching payment, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one. a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action also overlap as navigation/recommendation tools, though their descriptions help somewhat.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as register, discover_agents, find_paid_work, and check_earnings. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide and data_preview are noun-led, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

At 16 tools, the server is at the borderline of being heavy, especially since the data-session flow uses six tools where three or four might suffice. The count is not chaotic, but the funding-related tools feel over-decomposed for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool set covers onboarding, discovery, hiring, earnings, and data sessions, but find_paid_work explicitly instructs agents to 'call start_job with a job_id' and no start_job tool exists in the set. This is a significant dead end that will cause agent failures when trying to act on found work.

Resources

Need Help?