P0: email check, uptime, web reader

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

URL uptime ping batch

url_uptime_ping_batch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you monitor several endpoints: up to 10 http(s) URLs in one POST, each checked exactly like /v1/uptime/ping (status, latency, redirects, TLS, server) from Cloudflare's edge. Returns the paid x402 request for your input (POST /v1/uptime/ping/batch, $0.10 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. For one URL use url_uptime_ping. 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.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "url_uptime_ping_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	1 to 10 URLs; duplicates are removed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the two-stage workflow (returns a paid x402 request body that must then be POSTed), the $0.10 per-call price, that invalid input is rejected before any charge, and that a Bearer p0k_ key makes the tool pay and return data directly. Annotations only say read-only/idempotent/open-world, so this added payment and auth detail is the substantive value here.

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 selection rule before the mechanics, and nearly every clause carries information (price, batch cap, failure semantics). The long key-purchase URL and the compressed payment sentence make the tail harder to parse than the opening.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still explains what comes back (a signed x402 request, or the data itself when authenticated) and what the data contains. The phrase 'schema linked' defers the actual payload shape to an external reference, which is a small residual gap for a payment-bearing tool.

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, but the description adds constraints the schema omits: the URLs must be http(s) and each is checked with the full ping suite. It does not add syntax examples for the array beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('up to 10 http(s) URLs in one POST, each checked exactly like /v1/uptime/ping') and enumerates the checks performed (status, latency, redirects, TLS, server). It explicitly names the sibling it replaces for single-URL cases, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when you monitor several endpoints') and names the alternative with its selection condition ('For one URL use url_uptime_ping'). The payment-path fork (raw x402 request vs. access key) is also spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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?