Agent Weather

HTTP status meaning (paid: 0.001 RLUSD / 0.001 USDC on Base / 0.001 RLUSD on Base via x402)

http_status

Read-only

Paid: 0.001 RLUSD per call via x402 on XRPL mainnet (xrpl:0), or 0.001 USDC on Base (eip155:8453). Pay per call, solves one question: IANA reason-phrase for an HTTP status code (bundled snapshot; no URL fetch). Without payment this returns isError with the x402 PaymentRequired object (fresh invoiceId); retry with the signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"] or the payment_signature argument. Unpaid calls cost nothing.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "http_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`payment_signature`	No	Optional. Base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value (signed RLUSD or USDC PaymentPayload) for hosts that cannot set _meta["x402/payment"]. Omit on the first call to receive the payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the payment gate, the failure mode (isError with an x402 PaymentRequired object containing a fresh invoiceId), the retry channel (_meta["x402/payment"] or payment_signature), and that unpaid calls are free. It does not state the shape of a successful response, which is worth one line given no output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is entirely pricing, pushing the actual purpose to the second sentence, and pricing is stated twice (title and description) with three overlapping rate lines. The payment-retry mechanics are also lengthy relative to a one-argument lookup, so structure costs clarity rather than serving it.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Payment and error behavior are fully covered for a simple two-parameter tool. What is missing is the cheap stuff: the accepted format for `code` and the shape of a successful answer (plain text phrase vs. an object with code and phrase), which with no output schema and 50% schema coverage leaves a real gap.

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?

It adds real meaning for payment_signature (omit on first call, use when the host cannot set _meta), complementing the schema description. However the required `code` parameter has no description in the schema and the definition never says whether it is "404", 404, or a class like "4xx" — the single most likely source of a bad call.

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?

"Solves one question: IANA reason-phrase for an HTTP status code" names a specific verb-like result and resource, and the parenthetical "bundled snapshot; no URL fetch" bounds the scope. An agent knows exactly what it gets back versus the many sibling lookup utilities.

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 gives a clear condition for use (need the reason phrase for a status code) and explicitly warns that no URL is fetched, which prevents misuse as an HTTP prober. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps this lookup, so the gap is minor.

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

All Agent Weather 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?