Verify-api

check_endpoint_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe and verify the reachability, HTTP status code, latency, and operational health of an AI API endpoint or web service. Follows redirects with a 15-second timeout. Requires x402 micropayment (0.01 USDC on Base).

When to use: Check if a specific API URL or model endpoint is online, responding, or returning 5xx/402 errors. When NOT to use: Do NOT use for general domain WHOIS or DNS record lookups.

Parameters:

url (string, required): Target HTTP/HTTPS endpoint URL to probe (8-1000 chars), e.g. 'https://api.openai.com/v1/models'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The target API or service endpoint URL to probe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`verdict`	Yes	Reachability status verdict
`checked_at`	No	ISO 8601 timestamp of the check
`latency_ms`	Yes	Response latency in milliseconds
`http_status`	Yes	HTTP status code returned by the target endpoint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / url / description

Previous value: -"The target API or service endpoint URL to probe (e.g., 'https://api.example.com/v1/chat')."New value: +"The target API or service endpoint URL to probe."

addedInput schema / properties / url / examples

Added value: +[
+  "https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models",
+  "https://api.together.xyz/v1/health"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / url / maxLength
```
Added value: +1000
```
addedInput schema / properties / url / minLength
```
Added value: +8
```

AddedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: follows redirects, enforces a 15-second timeout, and requires an x402 micropayment of 0.01 USDC on Base. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every section earns its place: overview, behavioral specifics, usage guidance, and parameter note. It is concise without omitting critical operational details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given only one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential call context: what the tool checks, timeout/redirect behavior, payment prerequisite, and when it should not be used. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single `url` parameter is already well-documented with format, examples, and length constraints. The description adds marginal emphasis on HTTP/HTTPS and repeats the character range, but does not substantially extend schema semantics.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's specific function: probing and verifying reachability, HTTP status, latency, and operational health of an API endpoint or web service. It differentiates itself from sibling web/content tools by focusing on endpoint health rather than content extraction or searching.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections give clear context and exclusions, such as avoiding WHOIS/DNS lookups. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops just short of the full 5-level guidance.

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

All Verify-api 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?