Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services

Run Agent Security Scan

run_agent_security_scan

Read-onlyIdempotent

The aggregate agent assessment — ONE signed report. use it rather than run_mcp_security_scan for agent security scan, not mcp security scan; an object with 9 fields including files, permissions. $1 USDC.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	No	The task this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
`text`	No	The source text the operation operates on.
`files`	No	The files this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
`prompt`	No	The prompt this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
`subject`	No	The subject the operation is applied to — an id, a URL or a name, depending on the operation.
`permissions`	No	The permissions this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
`tool_results`	No	The tool results this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
`tool_definitions`	No	The tool definitions this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.
`tool_descriptions`	No	The tool descriptions this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	No	The `task` field of the response.
`text`	No	The `text` field of the response.
`files`	No	The `files` field of the response.
`prompt`	No	The `prompt` field of the response.
`subject`	No	The `subject` field of the response.
`permissions`	No	The `permissions` field of the response.
`tool_results`	No	The `tool_results` field of the response.
`tool_definitions`	No	The `tool_definitions` field of the response.
`tool_descriptions`	No	The `tool_descriptions` field of the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / files

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `files` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / permissions

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `permissions` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / prompt

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `prompt` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / status

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / subject

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `subject` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / task

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `task` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / text

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `text` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / tool_definitions

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `tool_definitions` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / tool_descriptions

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `tool_descriptions` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / tool_results

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `tool_results` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description is only required to add context beyond that. It does: the output is a single signed report and the call costs $1 USDC, which the agent needs to know before invoking a paid tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single compressed run-on sentence with semicolon splicing and redundancy ('for agent security scan, not mcp security scan' repeats the tool name). The key facts (signed report, cost, sibling choice) are present but not cleanly front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Nine parameters, all optional with boilerplate schema descriptions ('The task this operation operates on'), and the description offers no guidance on which inputs are needed to produce a meaningful scan. It also spends words describing the return object that the output schema already defines.

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 adds nothing about the nine parameters — the mention of 'files, permissions' describes the output object, not what to supply as input.

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?

It names a specific operation ('agent security scan', 'aggregate agent assessment — ONE signed report') and explicitly separates it from the sibling run_mcp_security_scan. The verb is vague ('aggregate assessment' rather than stating what is scanned), but the sibling contrast makes selection unambiguous.

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 an explicit routing rule: use this rather than `run_mcp_security_scan` for agent security scans, not MCP security scans. No when-not or prerequisite conditions are given, 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 Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services 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.