revettr-mcp
Server Details
Counterparty risk scoring for agentic commerce via x402 micropayments.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- AlexanderLawson17/revettr-python
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- revettr
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'score_counterparty' has a single, clearly defined purpose of scoring counterparties for risk, making it impossible for an agent to misselect among non-existent alternatives.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'score_counterparty' follows a verb_noun pattern, which is clear and predictable, and there are no other tools to cause inconsistency or deviation in naming conventions.
A single tool is too few for most practical server purposes, as it severely limits functionality and scope. While the tool's purpose is clear, a server with only one tool feels thin and incomplete, lacking the breadth needed for comprehensive operations in its domain, such as managing or querying counterparty data beyond scoring.
The server has a significant gap in coverage for the implied domain of counterparty risk management. It only provides a scoring tool, missing essential operations like creating, updating, deleting, or listing counterparties, which are necessary for a complete lifecycle. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform broader tasks.
Available Tools
1 toolscore_counterpartyAInspect
Score a counterparty before sending money. Returns risk score 0-100.
Accepts EVM wallets (0x...), Stellar wallets (G...), domains, IPs, and company names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | ||
| chain | No | base | |
| domain | No | ||
| company_name | No | ||
| stellar_wallet | No | ||
| wallet_address | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully identifies the return format (risk score 0-100) and acceptable input types. However, it omits critical operational details: authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the scoring is deterministic, what constitutes a 'high' risk score, and any data retention policies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and context, second defines output, third enumerates inputs. Information is front-loaded and appropriately dense for a financial risk tool. No redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and high-level purpose. However, with six optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool complexity demands explicit guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., 'provide at least one identifier') which is missing. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially succeeds by mapping five of six parameters to input types (EVM wallets, Stellar wallets, domains, IPs, company names). However, it fails to document the 'chain' parameter (defaulting to 'base') and critically omits the constraint that at least one identifier must be provided despite all parameters being technically optional in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Score a counterparty'), the resource (counterparty), and the contextual trigger ('before sending money'). It also clarifies the return value (risk score 0-100), providing a complete operational picture without tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit positive guidance on when to use ('before sending money'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, but this is acceptable given there are no sibling tools requiring differentiation. The context is clear enough for proper invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.