Skip to main content
Glama

x711 — Universal Agent Gas Station

x711_ping_shield_subscribe

Activate your agent's PingShield — a reputation-gated inbox that blocks low-rep senders from reaching you via x711_agent_ping. Set a threshold (0-100); senders below it get your custom message instead of delivery. Add a whitelist (always let through) or blacklist (always blocked). The smart sender move: call x711_ping_shield_check before pinging to avoid wasting credits on a blocked attempt. Requires API key. Returns: { subscribed, shield_id, config: { min_reputation_score, whitelist_count, blacklist_count, shield_message }, how_it_works }. Cost: $0.10.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blacklistNoAgent UUIDs always blocked regardless of rep (max 50). Overrides whitelist.
whitelistNoAgent UUIDs always allowed through regardless of rep (max 50). Overrides threshold.
shield_messageNoMessage returned to blocked senders (max 280 chars). E.g. 'Build Hive rep first, then ping me.' Visible via x711_ping_shield_check.
min_reputation_scoreNoMinimum sender reputation (0-100) for delivery. Default: 50. Use x711_agent_reputation to check any agent's score.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: blocks low-rep senders, returns a custom message, requires an API key, costs $0.10, and includes a return structure. Since annotations provide only hints, this is solid coverage, though it does not address effects on existing subscriptions or idempotency.

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?

The description is compact yet informative, covering purpose, parameters, cost, and return value in about five sentences. It is well-front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists in explaining shield_message, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the return fields. It includes auth requirements, cost, and a usage tip, and references sibling tools for related actions. It does not mention handling pre-existing subscriptions, but this is a minor gap for a subscribe tool.

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 descriptions already cover all 4 parameters with details like max 50 for lists, threshold range 0-100, default 50, and max 280 chars for shield_message. The description adds some inter-parameter context (whitelist/blacklist override threshold) and an example, but mostly paraphrases the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 as activating PingShield, a reputation-gated inbox, with a specific verb ('Activate'). It distinguishes from siblings like x711_ping_shield_check, status, and update by focusing on the subscribe functionality. The mechanism (blocking low-rep senders) is explained clearly.

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?

The description explicitly advises calling x711_ping_shield_check before pinging to avoid wasted credits, and points to x711_agent_reputation for checking scores. However, it does not explicitly contrast subscribe with update or status, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: x711_web_search and x711_deep_search both search the web, x711_agent_see and x711_data_retrieval both fetch URL content, and x711_agent_ping and x711_agent_telegram both enable agent messaging. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of tools and overlapping boundaries create confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the x711_ prefix and use snake_case, but the name structure is inconsistent. Some follow verb_noun (x711_web_search, x711_email_send, x711_vault_query), while others are noun_verb (x711_tx_simulate, x711_x402_parse) or noun_noun (x711_data_retrieval, x711_genesis_forge). Related tools are grouped by prefixes (hive_, ping_shield_, substrate_), but overall the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range. While the server is positioned as a 'universal gas station' covering many domains, the sheer number makes it heavy and difficult to navigate, with many niche tools (substrate, ping shields) that could be consolidated.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large tool count, there are significant lifecycle gaps. Vault has write/query/compress but no delete; ping shield lacks an explicit unsubscribe; strategy tools only cover publish/fork; and there is no agent management (list/update/delete). Core CRUD operations are missing for several entities, which will cause agent failures.

Resources