Skip to main content
Glama

Verify-api

by id.my.drain54.verify
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

solve_captcha

Solve web CAPTCHA challenges (Turnstile, hCaptcha, reCAPTCHA v2, Arkose, Cloudflare) and return a valid solution token. Requires x402 payment on Base.

When to use: Use when an agent encounters a bot wall or CAPTCHA challenge during automated web workflows. When NOT to use: Do NOT use for non-CAPTCHA auth, 2FA/OTP codes, or general login forms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full target page URL where the CAPTCHA challenge is hosted.
typeYesThe specific type of CAPTCHA challenge encountered on the target page.
sitekeyYesThe CAPTCHA sitekey parameter extracted from the target page DOM or iframe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesThe resulting CAPTCHA response token to submit to the form
methodNoSolving method or backend engine used
solvedYesWhether the CAPTCHA challenge was successfully solved
elapsedNoTime taken in seconds to solve the challenge

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / sitekey / description
      Added value: +"The CAPTCHA sitekey parameter extracted from the target page DOM or iframe."
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Added value: +"The specific type of CAPTCHA challenge encountered on the target page."
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "turnstile",
+  "hcaptcha",
+  "recaptcha",
+  "arkose",
+  "cloudflare"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"The full target page URL where the CAPTCHA challenge is hosted."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "elapsed": {
+      "description": "Time taken in seconds to solve the challenge",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "method": {
+      "description": "Solving method or backend engine used",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "solved": {
+      "description": "Whether the CAPTCHA challenge was successfully solved",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "description": "The resulting CAPTCHA response token to submit to the form",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "solved",
+    "token"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral requirement: 'Requires x402 payment on Base.' It also states the tool returns a solution token PoC. It could go further by mentioning failure behavior or token expiration, but it adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core action and payment requirement appear in the first sentence, followed by crisp usage guidance. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes to selection or invocation.

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?

For a captcha-solving tool with an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and clear usage exclusions, the description covers what an agent needs: supported providers, payment requirement, and when not to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the input schema already fully documents url, type, and sitekey with useful details like extracting sitekey from the target page DOM or iframe. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Solve web CAPTCHA challenges' and enumerates exact provider types (Turnstile, hCaptcha, reCAPTCHA v2, Arkose, Cloudflare). It also states the intended outcome, 'return a valid solution token,' which clearly differentiates it from a mere checker or verifier.

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?

The description provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, giving concrete conditions such as encountering bot walls or CAPTCHA challenges and excluding 2FA/OTP and general login forms. This is strong actionable guidance for an agent selecting the tool.

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

All Verify-api toolsInspect
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