Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Directory listing check

wever_directory-listing-check

Read-only

Agent directory round 2: check a directory listing draft before you submit it. Input the fields wever_directory-submit accepts: name, website, optional mcp_url, description, category (the directory layer), access (free, freemium or paid) and an optional email, which is checked and never repeated. The signed report evaluates the draft against the standards the Wever directory publishes under: the form field rules, a public HTTPS address for the website and endpoint, a description that says what the service does, the pricing stated, an MCP endpoint whenever the listing claims one, the content screen and the duplicate rule against live listings, with the specific fixes that would make it pass. It submits and publishes nothing. POST /api/directory-listing-check. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-records-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/directory/.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wever_directory-listing-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Server or tool name.
`email`	No	Optional contact email. It is checked against the form rule and never repeated in the report.
`access`	No	The pricing: free, freemium or paid.
`mcp_url`	No	The MCP endpoint URL, when the listing has one.
`website`	No	The website URL.
`category`	No	The directory category (the layer), as the directory names it.
`description`	No	The one-line description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the read-only/non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the metered cost (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, the Ed25519 signed receipt, and the fact that an email is checked but never repeated in output. The only shortfall is that the list of standards checked is asserted rather than characterized in any depth, so an agent cannot predict which fixes a given draft will trigger.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling relationship, then payment and identity details last, which is the right order. The middle sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration of standards that is dense but not padded — every clause names a distinct check.

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 no output schema, the description does its job by characterizing the return ('a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt') and pointing to both the machine contract (/api/agent-records-contract) and the human page. Payment, auth binding, and the non-mutating guarantee are all covered; what is missing is the error/partial-draft response shape, though the 'missing fields come back as fixes' line partially covers that.

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 every one of the seven fields is already documented, and the description's field enumeration largely restates it (including access = free/freemium/paid and email's never-repeated behavior). It adds only marginal framing — category as 'the directory layer' — so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the 3 baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a directory listing draft') and scopes it precisely as a pre-submission evaluator that 'submits and publishes nothing.' It also names the sibling it pairs with ('the fields wever_directory-submit accepts'), so an agent can separate check from submit without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit timing rule ('check ... before you submit it') and an explicit non-capability ('It submits and publishes nothing'), which together route the agent to wever_directory-submit for the actual write. The partial-draft guidance ('Send what you have; missing fields come back as fixes') further clarifies when this tool is the right call.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails 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?