ScriptMaster Agentic Vending Router
Server Details
x402-gated agentic vending stack for AI agents — dynamic-priced payload vending, Ghost Layer decision-notarization resale, and a real multi-seller marketplace for x402-payable APIs. Base/USDC + XRPL/RLUSD settlement.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool targets a distinct function: browsing two different marketplaces, notarization, status checking, listing, and a generic pay-per-call endpoint. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes, leaving no ambiguity.
Most tools follow a 'noun_verb' pattern (e.g., 'exchange_browse', 'marketplace_list'), but 'ghost_layer_status' uses a noun instead of a verb, and 'vend_dynamic' reverses the order (verb_adjective). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketplace and notarization router. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy, and the number feels neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tools cover browsing, listing, notarizing, and status checks, but lack explicit purchase or transaction execution tools for the marketplaces. While the descriptions imply payment is possible, no tool directly handles buying, which is a notable gap.
Available Tools
6 toolsexchange_browseGhost Exchange — Compute & Intelligence ListingsAInspect
A curated view of the Agentic Marketplace, filtered to direct spot sales of compute capacity ('compute' category) and inference/analysis output ('intelligence-exchange' category) — an agent buying GPU time or a model's output pays the listed price and receives the listed service, full stop. No futures, no leverage, no reputation derivatives, no anonymity beyond the base marketplace. ScriptMasterLabs' own Ghost Layer Decision Notary is the flagship intelligence-exchange listing: mint a real cryptographic attestation of any inference output without exposing the model or methodology behind it. Always free to browse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states exclusions ('No futures, no leverage, no reputation derivatives, no anonymity beyond the base marketplace') and that browsing is free, providing transparency beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be split into clearer sections for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple browse tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what is shown, what is excluded, and even mentions a flagship listing. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaningful context about the filter categories, justifying the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a curated view filtered to 'compute' and 'intelligence-exchange' categories, with specific verb 'browse' and resource 'Agentic Marketplace'. It distinguishes from sibling 'marketplace_browse' by specifying the filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for compute and intelligence listings, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'marketplace_browse' for other categories. Does not include when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ghost_layer_notarizeGhost Layer Decision NotaryAInspect
Mints a real Xahau URIToken cryptographic receipt for any AI decision/payload via the live Ghost Layer notary. This server pays Ghost Layer's own XRPL/Xahau fee on your behalf, so you never need an XRPL wallet — pay 0.15 USDC (Base) or 0.15 RLUSD (XRPL) here instead. Returns decision_hash, xahau_tx, verify_url, and (certified/sovereign tiers) an Ed25519-signed certificate you can verify independently against Ghost Layer's published attestation pubkey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| payload | No | The decision/data to notarize (any JSON value). | |
| endpoint | No | ||
| agent_wallet | No | ||
| payment_proof | No | Base64 X-Payment-Proof equivalent. Omit to receive a 402-style payment challenge. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the server pays fees, the fee structure, return values including certificate for certain tiers, and that omitting payment_proof triggers a 402 challenge. It lacks details on potential side effects or rate limits but covers key behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and packs essential information efficiently. Slightly wordy but appropriate for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality, fee, output fields, and optional payment behavior. However, it lacks details on parameters like model and endpoint, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (payload and payment_proof have descriptions). The tool description adds overall context but does not explain the remaining three parameters (model, endpoint, agent_wallet). With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool mints an Xahau URIToken cryptographic receipt for AI decisions, specifying the action, resource, and context. It distinguishes from siblings like ghost_layer_status by focusing on notarization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool for notarizing decisions and implies it's for getting cryptographic receipts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ghost_layer_statusGhost Layer Chain StatusAInspect
Real-time XRPL + Base client liveness, treasury address, and product listing from the live Ghost Layer bridge (ghost-layer.onrender.com). Always free — a discovery hook, not a billed tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is a real-time, free, read-only discovery hook, and provides the source URL. However, it does not specify rate limits or failure behavior, though these are less critical for a status endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and additional context (free, discovery hook) in the second. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter tool, the description covers the key data provided (liveness, treasury, product listing) and its free, real-time nature. It could mention the output format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable. The tool requires no input, and the description indirectly explains that it returns status data without requiring parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'Real-time XRPL + Base client liveness, treasury address, and product listing' from the Ghost Layer bridge. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghost_layer_notarize or marketplace tools by focusing on chain status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a discovery hook and notes it is always free, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marketplace_browseAgentic Marketplace — Browse ListingsBInspect
Real, persistent directory of x402-payable APIs — ScriptMasterLabs' own ~45 endpoints (free and paid) plus any third party's listed services. ScriptMasterLabs listings sort first as the default recommendation, but every listing here is independently payable — decline any of them and pay a different lister instead. Always free to browse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category filter (e.g. finance, agent-economy, defi). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes basic behavior (persistent directory, free to browse, ordering) but does not disclose details like pagination, authentication, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description holds the burden and is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus parameter description; front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly tighter but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completeness is adequate for a simple browse tool with one param and no output schema, but lacks details like result format, pagination, or how to interpret listings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one optional parameter 'category' with schema description already present. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it browses a directory of x402-payable APIs, using specific verbs. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'marketplace_list', which may perform a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage is free and always available, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like marketplace_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marketplace_listAgentic Marketplace — List Your APIAInspect
List any x402-payable API in the same directory ScriptMasterLabs' own products appear in, for 0.05 USDC or RLUSD — a one-time listing fee, no recurring cost. Your listing appears immediately, sorted after ScriptMasterLabs' own entries but fully discoverable and payable by any agent browsing marketplace_browse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| method | No | ||
| pay_to | Yes | ||
| network | No | ||
| tagline | No | ||
| base_url | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| endpoint | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| payment_proof | No | ||
| submitted_by_wallet | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the one-time fee, no recurring cost, and the sorting order. However, it does not discuss authentication, payment failure behavior, or other side effects, which would be needed for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (14 parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and high-level behavior but is insufficient for an agent to fully understand all inputs and outputs without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by mentioning the fee and payment tokens (USDC, RLUSD). However, it does not explain most parameters, leaving a significant gap for agent understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: listing an x402-payable API in the marketplace directory. It specifies the fee, sorting, and discoverability, distinguishing it from the sibling tool marketplace_browse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to list an API) and mentions the one-time fee and immediate listing. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
vend_dynamicDynamic-Priced Payload VendingBInspect
Generic pay-per-call endpoint priced by payload size: 0.01 base + 0.005/KB (capped at 2.00). Returns a SHA-256 digest and byte length for the submitted payload — a minimal reference implementation of the dynamic x402 pricing model any tool on this router can reuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No | Arbitrary JSON payload to vend. Price scales with its serialized size. | |
| payment_proof | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions cost formula and return values but fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether it consumes credits, logs, or has idempotency). No mention of authentication, rate limits, or possible failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information (pricing, returns, purpose). No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 params, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description explains the core functionality and pricing model. However, lacks details on potential side effects, prerequisites, and error handling, which are important for a payment-related tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (payload has description, payment_proof does not). Description adds pricing context but does not clarify payment_proof format or constraints. It compensates partially but leaves parameter semantics incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'pay-per-call endpoint' that vends payloads based on size. Returns SHA-256 and byte length. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are about notarization, status, and marketplace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description implies it's a generic endpoint for testing the pricing model, but lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!