Skip to main content
Glama

Gray Next

gray_next
Read-onlyIdempotent

The next binary reflected Gray code after g. It is the code of the index one past the index of g. A negative code is rejected. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/gray-next

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": {
      "g": "<g>"
    },
    "name": "gray_next"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: negative inputs are rejected, each successful call costs $0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana, and an HTTPS POST endpoint is available.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are mostly efficient. The index explanation is slightly redundant, while the pricing and endpoint details are relevant to invocation.

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?

For a simple one-parameter computational tool, the description explains the operation and input rejection rule. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state the return format or whether the result is returned as a decimal string/integer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies g as a code and notes that negative codes are rejected, but it does not clarify the exact representation, leading-zero rules, or the 200-digit schema constraint.

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?

The description gives a specific operation and resource: the next binary reflected Gray code after g. It clearly distinguishes a "next" operation from encode/decode-style siblings by name, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It implies usage for computing the successor Gray code and notes that negative codes are rejected, but it does not compare against siblings such as gray_encode, gray_decode, or gray_flip. The HTTPS endpoint and pricing are useful context but not selection guidance.

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