P0: email check, uptime, web reader

by dev.workers.x402-bazaar-rank-worker.x402-bazaar-rank

Doc read

doc_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use for reading a web page as clean markdown for an LLM or agent (url to markdown, reader, html to text): POST {url, max_chars} and get {title, markdown, chars, source_url}. Returns the paid x402 request for your input (POST /v1/doc/read, $0.005 per call; schema linked). POST that JSON body to the URL with an x402 or MPP client to get the data. Bad input is refused before any charge. With an access key (Authorization: Bearer p0k_..., buy at https://x402-bazaar-rank.x402-bazaar-rank-worker.workers.dev/keys/buy?usd=5) the tool pays the call itself, returns the data and deducts the price. First call each day returns the data itself, free; later calls return the paid request.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "doc_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	public http or https page to read, e.g. https://example.com/
`max_chars`	No	longest markdown to return; longer pages are cut and marked truncated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the entire x402 payment mechanic: the tool returns a paid request rather than data, the $0.005/call price, bad-input-before-charge guarantee, access-key behavior with deduction, and the free-first-call-per-day rule. This is exactly the hidden behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the purpose and then layering the payment flow. The buy-URL is long and noisy, though it is necessary operational detail; nearly every clause 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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the return fields and explains the payment path and free-tier behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The only mild gap is that it does not state what a refusal/error looks like, but overall it is well-covered for a 2-param tool.

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%, so url and max_chars are already fully documented with constraints and defaults. The description reiterates the {url, max_chars}→{title, markdown, chars, source_url} shape but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 the specific verb and resource ('reading a web page as clean markdown') and bolts on canonical synonyms (url to markdown, reader, html to text) plus the concrete I/O shape, so an agent immediately knows what this does and distinguishes it from the email/uptime siblings.

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 clearly frames the use case (fetch a web page's content for an LLM/agent) and the sibling tools cover unrelated domains, so selection is unambiguous. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance, keeping it at a solid 4.

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

All P0: email check, uptime, web reader 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?