Skip to main content
Glama

Mac Local

mac_local
Read-onlyIdempotent

A stable locally administered unicast MAC from a seed. SHA-256 of the seed, first six bytes, multicast bit cleared and the U/L bit set. The same seed always returns the same MAC. This is not a random draw and not a real assignment. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/mac-local

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": {
      "seed": "<seed>"
    },
    "name": "mac_local"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context: SHA-256 derivation, bit manipulation, determinism, non-randomness, non-real assignment, and a per-call price. It stops short of discussing error behavior or rate limits beyond cost.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and key behavior, then adds algorithm details and pricing without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information for an agent.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, algorithm, determinism, cost, and alternative access. It omits explicit output format (e.g., colon-separated hex) but the term 'MAC' is standard enough for most agents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'seed' is hashed via SHA-256 and determines the output deterministically, clarifying the parameter's role. It does not specify accepted seed formats beyond being a string (schema provides maxLength).

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('stable locally administered unicast MAC from a seed'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mac_address or eui64, so it misses the top mark.

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 states 'This is not a random draw and not a real assignment,' which implicitly guides against misuse, but it does not name alternatives or specify when to choose this over siblings like mac_address. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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