SettlementWitness
Server Details
Deterministic verification gate for agent execution and x402 settlement.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- nutstrut/default-settlement-verifier
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 2.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clear purpose of forwarding to SettlementWitness and returning receipt JSON, making it impossible for an agent to misselect among non-existent alternatives.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'settlement_witness' follows a clear snake_case pattern, and with no other tools to compare to, there are no deviations or inconsistencies in naming conventions.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and suggests a thin or incomplete surface. For a server named 'SettlementWitness', which implies potential operations like verifying, querying, or managing settlements, one tool feels insufficient and may cause agent failures due to lack of broader capabilities.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for the inferred domain of settlement witnessing. While the single tool handles forwarding and returning receipts, there are obvious gaps such as querying settlement status, verifying details, or managing multiple settlements. This minimal coverage will likely lead to agent dead ends in more complex workflows.
Available Tools
1 toolsettlement_witnessCInspect
Thin MCP adapter that forwards to SettlementWitness and returns the exact receipt JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| task_id | 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 forwarding and returning receipt JSON, but lacks critical behavioral details: what SettlementWitness does (e.g., processing, validation), error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's operational traits and risks.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal information, so while structurally sound, it lacks depth that might justify more elaboration 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 the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what SettlementWitness is, the purpose of the parameters, the nature of the receipt, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters (task_id, spec, output). It provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to SettlementWitness. The mention of 'receipt JSON' hints at output but doesn't clarify inputs, failing to add value beyond the bare 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 states it's a 'thin MCP adapter that forwards to SettlementWitness,' which implies a proxy/forwarding action, but 'returns the exact receipt JSON' is vague about what SettlementWitness does or what 'receipt' means. It restates the tool name ('SettlementWitness') without clarifying the core verb or resource, making it tautological in part. Without sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but the purpose remains unclear beyond basic forwarding.
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 is provided on when to use this tool, such as what scenarios trigger forwarding to SettlementWitness, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description only describes the tool's function without context for application, leaving the agent with no usage cues beyond the tool's name and vague forwarding role.
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!