Agent Weather

MCP Registry counts (paid: 0.001 RLUSD / 0.001 USDC on Base / 0.001 RLUSD on Base via x402)

mcp_registry_counts

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: How many MCP Registry server entries were updated in the last 1h and 24h? 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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mcp_registry_counts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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?

The annotations only cover safety and openness, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: exact per-call price, accepted networks/tokens, the failure shape on an unpaid call, and the recovery path. It stops short of describing the payload contents (e.g. field names for the 1h vs 24h counts) or any rate limiting.

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?

It is one run-on multi-clause sentence where pricing, purpose, error semantics and retry instructions are interleaved, so the key question the tool answers sits in the middle. Payment details are duplicated between the title and the description body, and some clauses (payment is required, retry) could be tightened without loss.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is largely sufficient: cost, payment flow, error behavior and the two time windows are all stated. What is missing is the shape of a successful response — whether counts are returned as discrete fields for 1h and 24h or a single object — which callers must discover from a paid call.

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 parameter is already documented, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: that payment_signature is the fallback transport for hosts unable to set _meta["x402/payment"] and that it is the second leg of a two-call payment flow. The schema alone would not reveal that sequencing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact question answered — how many MCP Registry server entries were updated in the last 1h and 24h — which is a specific resource plus metric and clearly distinct from every sibling (none of which are registry counters). It loses a point because the statement of purpose is buried mid-sentence after payment boilerplate rather than front-loaded.

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 concrete invocation protocol: call unpaid first, receive the x402 PaymentRequired object with a fresh invoiceId, then retry with the signed payload either in _meta["x402/payment"] or the payment_signature argument, and it notes unpaid calls cost nothing. It does not discuss when a caller might prefer a different tool, but with no comparable sibling there is little to exclude.

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?