Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

ciaudit_compose

Lint a docker-compose file: privileged, host network/pid/ipc, Docker socket mounts, SYS_ADMIN/ALL capabilities, unpinned images, database ports published on all interfaces, literal secrets, restart policy, memory limits. Price: $0.01 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "ciaudit_compose"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesFull text of the file (max 100 KB)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavioral context: cost ($0.01 USDC), payment rail (x402 on Base). However it omits the result shape (findings, severity levels) and never states that the file is not modified, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema.

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?

Verb and resource are front-loaded in the first clause and every item in the check list conveys which findings to expect. The enumeration is dense but each entry is informative; no filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Payment details and the 100 KB limit are covered, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say what the lint result looks like (e.g., per-issue findings vs. pass/fail) and whether it fails or just reports. That gap leaves an agent guessing about the return value.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Full text of the file, max 100 KB'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the content parameter, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lint a docker-compose file') plus an enumerated set of checks performed. The compose-file scope cleanly separates it from siblings ciaudit_dockerfile and ciaudit_github_actions.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — pass file text to lint — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no pointer to ciaudit_dockerfile as the alternative for non-compose files, and no prerequisites beyond the payment line.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources