Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks)

Free preflight: will a paid fetch succeed on this URL?

preflight

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, no payment. One call tells you whether a paid fetch tool would most likely succeed on a URL: DNS/public check, HTTP status, final URL after redirects (robots.txt checked on every hop), response time, robots.txt for the shop's agent and for *, content type, length and charset, and a verdict per tool (or for every eligible fetch tool) with the reason, price, paid endpoint and whether the free trial covers it. Never returns page content. Limited per IP per day.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "preflight"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL or bare domain
`tool`	No	Optional: the paid tool you plan to call (default: every eligible fetch tool)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`free`	No
`tool`	No
`cache`	No
`robots`	No
`charged`	No
`content`	No
`summary`	No
`checked_at`	No
`would_succeed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "tool",
+        "url",
+        "would_succeed"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "charged": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "properties": {
+    "cache": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "charged": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "content": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "free": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "robots": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "would_succeed": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the description earns credit by adding what they cannot: it is free/no-payment, rate limited per IP per day, checks robots.txt on every redirect hop, and never returns page content. Cost and quota disclosure are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling.

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 cost and no-payment point is front-loaded, and the setting is compact despite being a single dense enumeration sentence. The long list of returned signals partially duplicates the output schema, which is the only real trimming opportunity.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey purpose, cost, limits, and the 'no content' boundary, all of which it does. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the enum and the 'bare domain' allowance. The description only echoes the default behavior of the tool parameter ('or for every eligible fetch tool') and adds no format or selection guidance beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific action (preflight prediction of whether a paid fetch will succeed) plus the exact signals checked, and 'Never returns page content' cleanly separates it from siblings like page_markdown or readability. An agent can distinguish it from can_fetch or link_check without opening any schema.

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?

Framing it as the cheap check to run before a paid fetch tool is clear implied usage, and the tool parameter lets the agent scope the verdict. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X, use sibling Y instead' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Lordevo Shop (x402 website checks) 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?