Monetization gateway for MCP servers. Agents call a tool, receive an x402 v2 payment challenge, sign a USDC transfer on Base, and get the result. Payment is verified before the tool runs and settled only after it returns, so failed calls are never charged. Discovery and tool listing are free.
Report how much the user has earned selling their tools. Use when they ask about sales, revenue, income, how much they made, how many calls were paid, or which tool sells best. Returns paid calls, gross revenue, commission and net revenue, broken down per tool. Requires the api_key from register_server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your seller key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context by detailing the return fields (paid calls, gross revenue, commission, net revenue, broken down per tool) and the key requirement. It does not reveal potential rate limits or data freshness, but given annotation coverage, this is solid.
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?
Three crisp sentences: purpose, when-to-use, and output/prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and key info is front-loaded.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the return structure and prerequisite sufficiently. The sibling-tool context and schema coverage complete the picture.
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 covers api_key 100% with a simple description. The description adds value by specifying the key's origin ('from register_server'), which is beyond the schema. This helps the agent know how to obtain the key.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly names the resource ('how much the user has earned selling their tools'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_tool_price or list_registered_servers by focusing on earnings, and even lists concrete use cases.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when they ask about sales, revenue, income, how much they made, how many calls were paid, or which tool sells best.' This provides clear guidance and implies such questions are not handled by other sibling tools. It also notes the prerequisite 'api_key from register_server.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Review what the user currently has for sale. Use when they ask what they are selling, what their prices are, where their money goes, or want to check their listing before changing it. Returns the proxy URL, payout destination, commission rate and every listed tool with its price. Requires the api_key from register_server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your seller key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint false, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return payload (proxy URL, payout destination, commission rate, listed tools with prices) and the api_key requirement. No contradictions.
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 purpose, and every clause adds value. No redundant filler or repetition of schema content.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and the key requirement. Sibling tools are sufficiently differentiated, and no additional details seem necessary.
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 100% with 'Your seller key.' The description enriches this by stating the key must come from register_server and explicitly says 'Requires' it, which adds provenance and usage nuance. However, schema lists required as 0, so there is a slight inconsistency, but the description's instruction is still helpful.
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 reviews the user's current for-sale listing, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the listing contents (prices, payout destination, commission rate) rather than earnings or server registration.
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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: 'when they ask what they are selling, what their prices are, where their money goes, or want to check their listing before changing it.' Also gives a prerequisite (api_key from register_server), which helps guide correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find a paid tool that does something you cannot do yourself. Use when the user needs a capability you lack and is willing to pay per use, or asks what paid tools, APIs or data sources are available. Returns every tool on the market with its price per call in USD and the endpoint to call it. Browsing is free and needs no key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Case-insensitive match against tool names, descriptions and seller names. | |
| max_price_usd | No | Only return tools priced at or below this amount per call. | |
| verified_only | No | Return only sellers who proved they own the server they sell. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: 'Browsing is free and needs no key' clarifies authentication and cost expectations, which is important for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. It doesn't explain pagination or result shape, but the bar is lower given the annotations.
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: the first gives user-centric purpose and usage, the second states return contents and access requirements. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states what is returned: 'price per call in USD and the endpoint to call it.' It also covers access (free, no key) and the scope of results (every tool). Given the three simple optional parameters and clear annotations, this is complete for a filtered-list retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all three optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, relying on the structured schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage but does not exceed it.
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 as a marketplace search for paid tools: 'Find a paid tool that does something you cannot do yourself' and specifies it 'Returns every tool on the market with its price per call in USD and the endpoint to call it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_earnings or register_server by focusing on browsing/listing external offerings.
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?
Explicit usage conditions are provided: 'Use when the user needs a capability you lack and is willing to pay per use, or asks what paid tools, APIs or data sources are available.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke this tool versus other actions like registering or pricing tools, offering clear decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start charging for an MCP server the user owns. Use when they want to monetize, sell, charge for, get paid for, put a price on, or make money from a server, API or tool. Buyers pay their wallet DIRECTLY on-chain — PayGate never holds the money, so there is no payout to wait for, no balance to withdraw and no commission taken. Their server is never modified and needs no payment code. Tools are imported automatically, so it must be publicly reachable over HTTPS and answer tools/list. Returns a proxy URL and a secret api_key shown only once; save it, every other seller tool needs it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name of the service in the marketplace. | |
| No | Optional contact address. | ||
| wallet_address | No | EVM address that receives USDC on Base. Required unless stripe_account_id is given. | |
| default_price_usd | No | Price per call applied to every imported tool. Defaults to 0.02. | |
| stripe_account_id | No | Stripe Connect account (acct_...) to receive fiat instead. Only for tools priced at $0.50 or above. | |
| target_server_url | Yes | Public HTTPS URL of the MCP server to monetize, e.g. https://example.com/mcp |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with annotations marking this as non-read-only and open-world, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: direct on-chain payment, no payout waiting/no commission, server never modified, no payment code needed, and the requirement for HTTPS and tools/list. It also discloses that the api_key is shown only once and is needed by all seller tools, going well beyond the annotations.
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 longer than the TDQS 4.3 example but every sentence carries meaningful information: purpose, usage, payment model, prerequisites, and return values. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains structured, though a list/bullet format could improve scannability.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining return values, and does so clearly ('Returns a proxy URL and a secret api_key shown only once'). It also covers prerequisites (public HTTPS, tools/list), payment mechanics, and the non-modification guarantee, making it complete for a registration 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?
The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, though it does explain the return value's api_key, which is indirectly tied to the seller tools requirement.
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 opens with 'Start charging for an MCP server the user owns,' which clearly specifies the action and resource. It is distinguished from sibling tools like get_earnings or set_tool_price by establishing this as the registration/monetization entry point.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when they want to monetize, sell, charge for, get paid for, put a price on, or make money from a server, API or tool.' This provides clear context, though it does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Reprice or unlist something the user already sells. Use when they want to raise, lower or change a price, make a tool free, pause selling it, or take it off the market. Requires the api_key from register_server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your seller key. | |
| is_active | No | Set false to stop selling this tool. | |
| price_usd | No | New price per call in USD. Minimum 0.01. | |
| tool_name | Yes | Exact name of the tool to update. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the kinds of mutations (reprice, unlist, pause) and the api_key prerequisite. It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it does not go into detail about what happens to existing listings or return behavior, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action and the second lists specific use cases and the prerequisite. No filler or repetition of schema details.
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 that there is no output schema and moderately complex behavior, the description covers the primary scenarios (price changes, unlisting) and prerequisites. The only notable gap is the 'free' wording conflicting with schema minimum, and no mention of return values, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the origin of api_key (from register_server), which is helpful. However, it says 'make a tool free' while the schema sets a minimum of 0.01 for price_usd, which is misleading and could lead to an invalid call. This modest extra value is offset by the potential confusion.
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 verb 'Reprice or unlist' and the resource ('something the user already sells'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_earnings, get_my_listing, list_registered_servers, and register_server. The scope is unambiguous: only modifying existing listings, not creating new ones or reading.
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 explicitly lists the scenarios for use: 'raise, lower or change a price, make a tool free, pause selling it, or take it off the market.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires the api_key from register_server'), which helps the agent know when to invoke register_server first. No explicit exclusions, but the sibling context and the 'already sells' phrasing make alternatives clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prove the user owns the server they listed, earning a trusted badge in the marketplace. Use after they have published their verification token at /.well-known/paygate-verify on the server's domain. PayGate fetches that URL and confirms the token matches. Verified sellers can be filtered for by buyers, so this directly increases how often their tools get chosen. Requires the api_key from register_server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your seller key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific workflow (PayGate fetches the URL, confirms the token, awards a badge) and the benefit (increased visibility). It doesn't overstate or contradict annotations, and provides useful context beyond the structured fields.
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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the procedure and value. Every sentence contributes new information, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the workflow, prerequisites, and expected outcome. It does not mention error conditions or the response format, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this acceptable.
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 sole parameter (api_key) is fully described in the schema, and the description adds meaningful provenance by specifying it comes from register_server. This clarifies which key to use and why, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 uses a specific verb ('Prove') and resource ('ownership of the server they listed'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_earnings or register_server. It also explains the outcome (trusted badge) and the mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use after they have published their verification token...') and notes a prerequisite (requires the api_key from register_server). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context makes it clear this is the only verification tool among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: earnings reporting, listing review, marketplace browsing, server registration, pricing changes, and ownership verification. There is no overlap between these operations, so an agent will not confuse them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_earnings, get_my_listing, list_registered_servers, register_server, set_tool_price, verify_ownership. The style is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer what each tool does.
Six tools is well-scoped for a payment and marketplace server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of the seller workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for sellers: registering a server, managing prices, viewing earnings, reviewing listing, and verifying ownership. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated purpose.