Skip to main content
Glama

code402

by io.github.89rat

Trust-check an endpoint or domain

code402_trust_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query the code402 Atlas index for measured trust evidence on an endpoint or domain: probe-verified liveness (probedAlive), evidence tier (probe vs asserted), and ready-to-pay settlement terms (payTo, asset, CAIP-2 network, integer USDC amountUnits) when measured. Use before letting an agent pay any endpoint. Verified evidence is measured by probes, never self-reported. Returns { count, results: [{ title, url, probedAlive, evidence, settlement? }] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query — domain, URL, or service name, e.g. 'weather' or 'api.acme.com'
limitNoMax results (default 10)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: evidence is probe-measured, never self-reported, and the return shape includes settlement details when available. It could mention index freshness or empty-result behavior, but no stated contradiction.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then the evidence fields, then the return shape; every clause earns its place.

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 the simple query parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It includes purpose, high-level result shape, evidence fields, optional settlement terms, and the payment safety trigger that motivates use.

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?

The schema covers both parameters completely: q has type, length constraints, and examples; limit has min, max, and default. The description adds little to parameter semantics, but that is acceptable since the input schema itself carries the full burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource: query the code402 Atlas index for measured trust evidence on an endpoint or domain. It lists concrete evidence fields and distinguishes this lookup from the sibling code402_probe_endpoint by emphasizing existing probe-verified evidence in an index.

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 instruction 'Use before letting an agent pay any endpoint' is an explicit, actionable trigger. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name an alternative tool, but the use context is clear and sufficient for tool selection.

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

All code402 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: seller management, listing management, service discovery, health, reputation, analytics, invoice, probe, and trust. Even the two endpoint-checking tools (probe_endpoint and trust_check) serve clearly different purposes—one tests live challenges, the other queries an index.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a strict code402_verb_noun pattern with clear, consistent verbs (create, get, list, probe, register, trust). The naming is uniform and predictable, making tool selection straightforward.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—a gateway for paid API listings and trust management. Each tool serves a distinct functional need without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: seller registration, listing creation/update, service discovery, analytics, invoicing, reputation, and trust checks. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit listing deletion or a standalone reputation verification tool, but these are either covered implicitly or out of scope for the MCP surface.

Resources