x402_discover
x402 payable resources: compute, memory, reasoning. Desk credits live; USDC if pay-to is configured.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ANAMIZED Desk
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context about payment modes ('Desk credits live; USDC if pay-to is configured'), which helps the agent know what to expect, but it does not describe the output, side effects, or access requirements.
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 short and every phrase adds information: the resource domain, the categories, and payment details. It is not wordy, though the lack of a clear verb makes it feel more like a label than a well-formed definition.
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?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool, the description covers the domain and payment context, but it does not explain what the returned data will contain or how the agent should use the result. Without an output schema, that information is missing.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so parameter semantics are a non-issue. With no input schema properties, the description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the resource domain ('x402 payable resources') and lists resource categories, but it lacks an explicit verb or action such as 'list' or 'discover'. The agent must infer the tool's purpose primarily from its name, so the purpose is clear but not as precisely stated as it should be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like checkout_link, get_offer, or list_offers. There is no condition, alternative, or exclusion mentioned, so the agent receives no help in selecting this tool over related options.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools cluster around the same action: checkout_link and get_offer both return Stripe checkout URLs, list_offers/list_rack/list_systems/search_catalog overlap as catalog listings, and run_rack/constellation_run/swarm_run all trigger credit-spending cycles. The floor_* family is clear, but too many near-duplicate listing and run endpoints create real misselection risk.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is consistently snake_case and list_/floor_ prefixes help, but the set mixes verb_noon forms (floor_post, memory_write, run_rack), noun phrases (a2a_card, heartbeat, checkout_link), and bare nouns (discovery, floor_home). Still readable overall, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.
Tool Count2/5
At 29 tools, the desk exceeds the practical tool-count range, and many endpoints are informational or registry variants (discovery, a2a_card, agent_me, heartbeat, status endpoints) that could be consolidated. Even though the platform is broad, the set would be more coherent around 15-20 tools.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers floor posts, offers/payments, compute cycles, memory, wiki, and discovery, so most core workflows are reachable. However, there are noticeable gaps: no delete/edit for floor posts, no memory delete, no agent claim/unregister after register_agent, and no product lifecycle tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but the domain is not fully closed.