ScorpTech x402 Tools

Saml Decode

saml_decode

Read-onlyIdempotent

Decode and inspect SAML 2.0 messages for SSO debugging: paste a SAMLResponse / SAMLRequest (base64 from an HTTP-POST form, deflated + URL-encoded from an HTTP-Redirect URL, the whole redirect URL, or raw XML) or IdP / SP metadata. Returns the message type, issuer, destination, status, every assertion (NameID and format, subject confirmation, conditions with NotBefore / NotOnOrAfter checked against now, audiences, AuthnContext, session index, attributes), signature placement and algorithms, embedded certificates (subject, expiry, SHA-256 fingerprint) and metadata endpoints. Flags unsigned responses, SHA-1, signature references that do not cover their parent (XML Signature Wrapping), multiple assertions, comments inside NameID, expired conditions and expired certificates. DTDs are rejected (XXE-safe); signatures are inspected, not cryptographically verified. Price: $0.002 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/saml-decode

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": {
      "saml": "<saml>"
    },
    "name": "saml_decode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`now`	No	Unix time used for validity checks (default: now)
`saml`	Yes	SAMLResponse / SAMLRequest (base64, deflated base64, URL-encoded), a redirect URL, raw XML or metadata XML
`includeXml`	No	Return the decoded, pretty-printed XML

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses critical behavior an agent could not infer: DTDs are rejected (XXE-safe), signatures are inspected but NOT cryptographically verified, and specific anomalies are flagged (unsigned responses, SHA-1, XML Signature Wrapping, expired conditions/certs). It even discloses the paid pricing model and an alternate HTTPS endpoint.

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?

Well front-loaded with the core action and scope, then dense but useful detail. The long enumeration of returned fields is justified given there is no output schema, though the prose is heavier than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the exact return contents (message type, issuer, status, assertions, signature placement, certificate details), the edge cases flagged, and the security model. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description re-states the accepted 'saml' input formats but adds no meaning for the 'now' or 'includeXml' parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Decode and inspect SAML 2.0 messages') and enumerates the exact input forms accepted (base64, deflated+URL-encoded, redirect URL, raw XML, IdP/SP metadata), making it unambiguously distinct from siblings like jwt_decode, x509_decode, and xml_xpath without needing to name them.

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?

It states the context clearly ('for SSO debugging') and tells the agent what to paste in, but it never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g., 'use jwt_decode for tokens, x509_decode for bare certificates'). Strong context, no explicit routing.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools 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.

Resources

Need Help?