Routavo

Server Details

Any API, four tools: discover, call with routing and signed receipts, verify, dispute.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 100.0% over 23 days
Last Tested: 2026-09-27 15:37
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored 2026-09-20 18:00 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool handles a distinct stage of the workflow: discover finds providers, call executes the metered request, verify checks receipts, and dispute handles contested charges. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All four tools use lowercase imperative verbs: call, discover, dispute, verify. The naming style is uniform and predictable, making the toolset easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a routing and metering API service. Each tool contributes an essential function and there is no redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full caller lifecycle: discovery, invocation, verification, and dispute resolution. There are no obvious dead ends for the server's stated purpose.

Available Tools

4 tools

callCall an APIAInspect

Route a call to the Routavo network, meter it, and return the result. Give either a provider id from discover(), or a capability and let Routavo pick using its published routing rule. Optional max_price and max_latency_ms constrain the choice. Failed calls are recorded but cost nothing.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	No	Instead of one call, a sequence of up to 8 steps: [{ id, capability \| provider, arguments, max_price?, max_latency_ms? }]. A later step may take a value from an earlier one with { "$ref": "<step id>.output.<path>" }, e.g. { "$ref": "geo.output.results[0].lat" }. The whole plan is quoted before anything runs; with dry_run it is only quoted. Steps run in order and stop at the first failure. Each step returns its own receipt and the response carries one total.
`batch`	No	Instead of one arguments object, up to 50 of them for the same capability or provider. Run in parallel, each with its own receipt, one total. Failed items cost nothing and do not stop the others.
`budget`	No	A task budget: { id, max }. Spend under this id is tracked across any number of calls, plans and batches, and a call that would take it past max is refused with code "budget". { id, statement: true } returns what the budget has spent and the receipts behind it.
`fields`	No	Return only these output paths, e.g. ["results.name", "results.lat", "results.lng"]. Saves tokens; the receipt still hashes the full answer.
`quorum`	No	Ask 2 or 3 providers the same question and get an agreement score with every answer. Each provider is charged. Refused if fewer providers clear your constraints, so quote it first with dry_run.
`recipe`	No	A named, published plan, e.g. "weather_for_place". Give its arguments and it runs the steps for you, quoted first, with the last step's output on top. discover() lists recipes with their inputs and estimated price.
`wallet`	No	Your wallet address, asserted. Attributes metering and a daily cap on the free tier; it proves nothing. To pay from a balance, prove the wallet once at /api/wallet and send the key it returns as wallet_key or as Authorization: Bearer rw_...
`country`	No	Two letter code for where this request is, e.g. "FR". A routing hint, not an argument to the API: it lets a provider that covers only that country be chosen, and keeps one that does not out of the running. Unnecessary when the arguments already carry coordinates.
`dry_run`	No	Quote only: which provider would be chosen, at what price, with what latency, and why. Nothing is called, charged or counted.
`payment`	No	Pay this one call with x402: { rail: "x402", payload: <PaymentPayload> }, an EIP-3009 authorization to the pay-to address for at least the price, signed by your wallet. The requirements to sign are in discover() and in any payment_required error. A facilitator verifies and settles it; the receipt carries the transaction.
`failover`	No	Default true when routing by capability: if the chosen provider fails, the next eligible one is tried and only the one that answered is charged. Set false to fail fast.
`provider`	No	Provider id, e.g. "open-meteo.geocode". Omit to route by capability.
`arguments`	No	Arguments in the capability contract shape from discover(). Learn geocode once; every provider behind it takes the same input and returns the same output.
`max_price`	No	Do not route above this price per call, e.g. "0.0030"
`max_total`	No	For a plan: do not run if the quoted total exceeds this, e.g. "0.0100".
`capability`	No	Capability to route on, e.g. "geocode". Ignored when provider is given.
`wallet_key`	No	A wallet key (rw_...) from /api/wallet. Proves the wallet, and calls are paid from its deposited USDC balance. Prefer sending it as the Authorization: Bearer header.
`max_latency_ms`	No	Do not route to a provider slower than this p50
`idempotency_key`	No	Your own id for this call, up to 64 characters. A retry with the same key within 24 hours returns the same result and receipt and is never charged again. The output is kept for those 24 hours only because you asked for replay.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds important facts: calls are metered, failed calls are recorded but cost nothing, and routing can be constrained by price and latency. It does not cover advanced behaviors like dry-run quoting, budgets, or payment, but the schema documents those separately.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, the provider/capability decision follows immediately, and the cost/failure semantics close it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is complex with 19 parameters and no output schema, but the schema descriptions are exhaustive. Given that richness, the description covers the essential selection-level information: what the tool does, how routing works, and cost/failure behavior. It does not need to restate every parameter, though a brief mention of dry_run or plan/batch modes would be a small improvement.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a useful routing rule ('provider id from discover()' vs 'capability'), but this largely restates what the individual param descriptions already say for provider, capability, max_price, and max_latency_ms. It adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Route a call to the Routavo network, meter it, and return the result.' It clearly names the tool's operation and even points to the sibling discover() as the source of provider ids, which separates call from discovery. This is a strong, non-tautological definition.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance on how to select routing: provide a provider id from discover(), or provide a capability and let Routavo route. It also mentions optional constraints (max_price, max_latency_ms). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus dispute or verify, but the core invocation guidance is clear.

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

discoverDiscover APIsAInspect

Find APIs on the Routavo network that can perform a capability. Returns each provider with its published price, measured latency, terms, and the exact argument schema for calling it, plus the rule Routavo uses to pick between them. Call this before call() when you do not already know a provider id.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Free text when you do not know the capability name, e.g. "turn an address into coordinates" or "will it rain tomorrow". Matched against names, aliases, tags and descriptions; results come back ranked with a score.
`capability`	No	What you need done, e.g. "geocode" or "forecast". Omit to list everything.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`routing`	Yes
`providers`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses the returned fields (price, latency, terms, argument schema, selection rule), the ranked matching behavior, and the intended invocation context. There is no ambiguity about side effects or read-only status because the description frames it as a discovery/query operation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second lists the return payload, and the third gives the usage trigger. The most important guidance is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter discovery tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers invocation timing, output content, and the distinction from call(). Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the schema already provides rich descriptions for both query and capability. The tool description adds the conceptual context 'discovery before call' but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('APIs on the Routavo network that can perform a capability'), and clearly distinguishes itself from call() by explaining it discovers providers before a provider id is known. It also enumerates exactly what is returned, so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Call this before call() when you do not already know a provider id,' which gives both a positive trigger and a clear contrast with the sibling call tool. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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

disputeDispute a chargeAInspect

Flag a metered call for the provider to review. Takes the receipt and a short reason. The receipt must verify and must have charged something. The dispute lands in that provider's queue and is visible to Routavo. One dispute per receipt.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	What was wrong, in plain words. Up to 500 characters. Do not paste the response body.
`receipt`	Yes	The receipt object from the call() result you are disputing.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real side effects: the dispute is placed in the provider's queue, is visible to Routavo, and is limited to one per receipt. It stops short of stating reversibility or auth requirements, but the important write-side behavior is clear.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct value: action, inputs, preconditions, destination/side effect, and unique constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers what, when, preconditions, and consequences. It does not specify the return shape or error behavior, but those are not needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds beyond the schema by noting the reason should be short and that the receipt must verify and have charged something. It also connects the receipt parameter to the call() result implicitly through the mention of a metered call.

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 pair ('Flag a metered call') and names the exact domain (disputing a charge). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like call, discover, and verify by indicating this is the review/flagging action, not a creation or verification action.

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 gives concrete preconditions: the receipt must verify and must have charged something, and one dispute is allowed per receipt. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use them, but the conditions clearly gate when the tool applies.

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

verifyVerify a receiptAInspect

Check a receipt returned by call(). Confirms the signature, so the provider, price, fee, and the hashes of what went in and came out are exactly what Routavo recorded. Works for anyone holding the receipt. Reveals nothing else.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	Yes	The receipt object from a call() result.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits: signature confirmation, the specific fields verified, accessibility to anyone holding the receipt, and a privacy guarantee ('reveals nothing else'). However, it does not describe what happens on invalid signature (error vs. false return) or the return shape, which is a notable gap for an agent.

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?

Four short sentences, all informative. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and the privacy guarantee is a compact final sentence. No redundant phrases or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter source, and privacy, but does not specify the return value or behavior on invalid signatures. Since there is no output schema, the description should be more explicit about what the agent receives after verification, especially in failure cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing the receipt fields that are verified (provider, price, fee, hashes), which clues the agent into the expected structure and semantics of the receipt object.

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 states a specific verb ('Check/Confirms'), a specific resource ('a receipt returned by call()'), and enumerates exactly what is confirmed (provider, price, fee, and hashes). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like call, discover, and dispute, which all have distinct purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this when you hold a receipt returned by call() and need to confirm its authenticity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would not confuse it with siblings.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateSep 20, 2026

Changedcall1 field changed

addedInput schema / properties / country

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Two letter code for where this request is, e.g. \"FR\". A routing hint, not an argument to the API: it lets a provider that covers only that country be chosen, and keeps one that does not out of the running. Unnecessary when the arguments already carry coordinates.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

4 tool updatesSep 5, 2026
- First observedcall
- First observeddiscover
- First observeddispute
- First observedverify

Related MCP Connectors

Ausca A
com.ausca
Pay-per-call APIs and MCP services for agents, no accounts or keys, with verifiable receipts.
Payments & Billing Autonomous Agents
141
Proof Holdings B
holdings.proof
One API, all things verified — control, delegation, human approval, anti-impersonation.
Security Autonomous Agents
1761
code402 A
io.github.89rat
Discover machine-payable APIs, probe x402 payment terms, and run seller operations. Non-custodial.
Payments & Billing
121
InfraPulse A
ai.infrapulse
AI agent infrastructure for discovery, authorization, execution, identity, and signed receipts.
Agent Orchestration Developer Tools
1

Related MCP Servers

APIVouch
API Testing Autonomous Agents
ShahadatTest
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables agents to route goals across multiple independent APIs, enforce constraints, reject invalid evidence, and return verified outcomes with tamper-evident receipts.
Updated 8 days ago (2026-09-19 17:34 UTC)
MIT
axiom-relay
API Testing Documentation Access
Itr3k
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Enables agents to discover services and check API contracts via tools like directory search, API Doctor, and receipt verification, without requiring an account or payment.
Updated 2 days ago (2026-09-25 20:43 UTC)
MIT
APIVouch
API Testing Autonomous Agents Developer Tools
sklabstudio
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables agents to route one goal across multiple independent APIs, reject invalid or disagreeing evidence, and return a verified outcome with a tamper-evident receipt that can be independently checked.
Updated 13 days ago (2026-09-14 20:01 UTC)
MIT
MCPv2
Autonomous Agents Agent Orchestration
tsonisalomon-lgtm
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
A peer-to-peer protocol for AI agents to call tools on each other over HTTP, with cross-provider translation, file transfer, batching, rate limiting, and audit logging.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-08-01 18:07 UTC)
MIT

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?