aegis
Server Details
Trusted agent-commerce hub: discover, trust-check, and route x402 payments with failover.
- 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 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Most tools are clearly distinct (discover vs. smart_discover overlap slightly but differ in payment and intent matching). Other tools (procure, route, route_batch, trust_check) have well-defined boundaries.
Names are lowercase with underscores for compound names (route_batch, smart_discover), but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun. Some are single verbs (discover, procure) while others are adjective+verb or verb+noun.
Six tools cover the core functionality of service discovery, procurement, routing, and trust verification without excess. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set addresses key user needs: finding, evaluating, and accessing services. Missing administrative tools (e.g., service registration) are likely outside the agent's scope, so no major gaps.
Available Tools
6 toolsdiscoverCInspect
Search the Aegis registry of agent-payable services, ranked by verification-backed trust. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| min_trust | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description mentions trust-based ranking and free usage, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or other 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?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is minimal and lacks structure to convey additional useful information. It is not overly long but could be improved.
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 absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. It does not explain expected input format, return structure, or behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, category, min_trust). It adds no meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states the tool searches the Aegis registry for agent-payable services, ranked by verification-backed trust, and mentions it is free. This distinguishes it from siblings like route, smart_discover, and trust_check.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use discover versus alternatives. The description implies usage for searching agent-payable services but does not provide exclusion criteria or context for sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
procureBInspect
TASK+BUDGET procurement: describe what you need in plain language + max spend; Aegis picks the best verified service, executes with failover, captures only on delivery, returns data + Ed25519-signed receipt. Never over budget. Dynamic x402 via _meta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | ||
| budget | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides substantial behavioral info: failover, capture only on delivery, signed receipt, budget guarantee, and dynamic x402 via _meta. It lacks details on error states or fallback when budget is insufficient, but overall good disclosure.
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 concise sentence that packs key features without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the task and budget framing.
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 input semantics and core behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or edge cases. Adequate for a simple tool but not exhaustive.
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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that 'need' is a plain-language description and 'budget' is max spend. However, it does not provide examples or constraints beyond what schema gives (type string/number). Partial compensation.
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 performs procurement: user describes a need and budget, then Aegis selects and executes a service. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover' or 'route' by focusing on procurement with budget constraints.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description implies use when you need to procure a service with a budget, but does not exclude other tools or specify scenarios where alternatives are better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
routeBInspect
Pay THROUGH Aegis: we buy the best verified service for you (by url or capability) and relay the data, failing over if one is down. One integration reaches the whole registry; not charged if nothing delivers. Dynamic x402 price via _meta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| capability | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses payment, failover, dynamic pricing via _meta, and a money-back guarantee. However, it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error behavior beyond failover. The key behavioral traits are mentioned but not comprehensively.
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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value (payment, failover, pricing). However, the first sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy ('Pay THROUGH Aegis') which slightly reduces clarity.
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, no annotations, and two parameters, the description covers core functionality (routing, payment, failover) but omits output format and examples. It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks detail for complex use cases.
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 0%, so the description compensates by noting the two parameters correspond to 'by url or capability'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it lacks format, constraints, or examples. The description provides partial semantics but not enough for full understanding.
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 states the tool pays through Aegis to buy a verified service and relay data, which specifies the verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (discover, trust_check) by focusing on execution and payment. However, the emphasis on 'pay' may confuse users expecting a routing tool, and the tool name 'route' is not directly explained.
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 implies usage as a unified integration for accessing services, with failover and no charge if nothing delivers. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
route_batchBInspect
Pay ONCE, Aegis fulfills MANY verified services with per-item failover. items=[{url|capability, params?}]. Charged only if all deliver. Dynamic x402 via _meta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'per-item failover' and 'Dynamic x402 via _meta' but lacks details on failure handling, partial success, or required permissions. The behavioral disclosure is incomplete.
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 concise, using about 20 words plus a code snippet. It front-loads the core concept of batch processing and payment. However, the cryptic 'Dynamic x402 via _meta' could be clarified.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter described only briefly, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error modes, rate limits, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 defines only an array of objects with no structure. The description adds meaning with 'items=[{url|capability, params?}]', specifying that each item can have a url or capability and optional params. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though the exact parameter format remains somewhat ambiguous.
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 indicates it is a batch service that fulfills many verified services with per-item failover. It distinguishes from sibling 'route' by emphasizing batch processing ('MANY') and atomic payment ('Pay ONCE'). However, the mention of 'Dynamic x402 via _meta' is cryptic and reduces clarity.
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 suggests use for batch operations where charging occurs only if all items deliver, implying a payment model. It does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like 'route' or 'smart_discover', but the batch context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
smart_discoverBInspect
Describe what you need in plain language; Aegis maps it to the best verified services (LLM intent matching). Paid $0.01 via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses LLM intent matching and a $0.01 fee via x402, which is helpful. However, it omits details like what happens if no match is found, rate limits, or data handling.
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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a brief payment note. It front-loads the core action and waste no 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?
The description covers input and a behavioral trait (payment) but fails to describe the output format, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a simple tool, it is adequate but leaves significant gaps.
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 only a 'query' string with no description. The description adds meaning by stating users should 'describe what you need in plain language', explaining the param's purpose and format.
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 maps plain language requests to verified services using LLM intent matching. It adds specificity with the payment detail, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'discover'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover' or 'procure'. It only implies usage for natural language discovery, with no when-not or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trust_checkAInspect
Verification-backed trust score + signals for a service before you pay it. Paid $0.01 via x402 (_meta['x402/payment']).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the $0.01 payment via x402, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail other traits like idempotency, rate limits, or authorization beyond the payment.
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 one sentence, concise and to the point. It includes purpose and payment detail. However, it could be more structured with separate sentences for clarity.
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 complex behavior (paid tool), the description lacks details on return format, trust score interpretation, signals, and error cases. Leaves many gaps for an agent to use 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 0% and the description adds no meaning for the only parameter 'url'. It fails to describe format, constraints, or examples. The description says 'for a service' hinting url is the service endpoint, but that is insufficient.
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 provides a 'Verification-backed trust score + signals for a service before you pay it', using a specific verb (check implied by name) and resource (trust score). It distinguishes from siblings like discover and procure which serve different purposes.
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 indicates when to use: 'before you pay it'. This clearly sets usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough.
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
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!