CrossingKey MCP

Purchase OpenAPI Quality Audit

openapi.quality_audit

PAID $1.00 USDC on Base via x402. Evaluates structural quality and required fields in an OpenAPI document. Calling this MCP tool does not spend funds; it returns the exact PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge and canonical paid execution endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec`	Yes	Parsed OpenAPI document to audit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	Yes
`input`	Yes
`price`	Yes
`pay_to`	Yes
`network`	Yes
`capability`	Yes
`instruction`	Yes
`execution_url`	Yes
`execution_mode`	Yes
`payment_required`	Yes
`payment_required_header`	Yes
`settlement_expectations`	Yes
`confirmation_expectations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "asset": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "capability": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "confirmation_expectations": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "execution_mode": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "execution_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "input": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "instruction": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pay_to": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "payment_required": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payment_required_header": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "settlement_expectations": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "payment_required",
+    "execution_mode",
+    "capability",
+    "input",
+    "price",
+    "asset",
+    "network",
+    "pay_to",
+    "execution_url",
+    "payment_required_header",
+    "settlement_expectations",
+    "confirmation_expectations",
+    "instruction"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations leave readOnlyHint=false, which could mislead an agent into expecting a write; the description resolves this by explaining the tool returns a PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge rather than spending funds. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the hints, though the actual execution flow after payment is not spelled out.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the cost/payment constraint front-loaded, which is the most decision-relevant fact. No redundant filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the payment context that the schema and annotations cannot. Complete enough for an agent to decide and call, with only the post-payment flow left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter ('spec') whose schema description already documents it as the parsed OpenAPI document. The prose adds no format, size, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Evaluates structural quality and required fields in an OpenAPI document') and adds the pricing/payment model up front. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the closest siblings (mcp.schema_audit, x402.compatibility_audit) to draw the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clarifies the payment mechanics ('Calling this MCP tool does not spend funds') which is a real usage consideration, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives among the many audit/preflight siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

All CrossingKey MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.