Skip to main content
Glama

Wever Labs Agent Products

by io.github.CodeWever
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

AP2 Mandate Gateway

wever_ap2-mandate-gateway
Destructive

Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base; 10 signed-wallet free calls shared over rolling 30 days. Read the backend 402 body for x402 terms. Verifies allowlisted AP2 direct closed-checkout mandates, binds the presenter to the holder wallet, rejects expiry and replay, and durably consumes each mandate once. Operating boundary: Wever trusted-provider direct closed-checkout profile only. No open mandates, delegation chains, checkout execution, payment execution or fund transfers. Signed wallet proof is required even for paid calls. POST /api/ap2-mandate-gateway. Existing product credentials, signed mandates, and single-use action grants remain required where applicable. This adapter grants no authority and never supplies server credentials. This gateway verifies only its published AP2 direct closed-checkout profile, requires a trusted issuer and holder wallet proof, and consumes the mandate once. It does not execute the checkout or transfer funds. Start at /api/ap2-contract and /api/ap2-challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
presentationYes
challenge_tokenYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • removedInput schema / description
      Removed value: -"The existing product POST body. Supply its documented mode, arguments, and required signed authority or grant. The product validates its full contract."
    • removedInput schema / maxProperties
      Removed value: -64
    • removedInput schema / minProperties
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / challenge_token
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 16384,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / mode / const
      Added value: +"verify_mandate"
    • removedInput schema / properties / mode / maxLength
      Removed value: -128
    • removedInput schema / properties / mode / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedInput schema / properties / mode / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / presentation
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 32768,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "mode",
+  "presentation",
+  "challenge_token"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description meaningfully extends this: single-use consumption ('durably consumes each mandate once'), replay/expiry rejection, required signed-wallet proof even on paid calls, and the 402/x402 payment terms. This adds behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

The description is dense and repetitive, restating that it does not execute the checkout or transfer funds and that it consumes the mandate once. It is information-rich but not front-loaded on purpose, opening with pricing. Much earns its place, but trimming repetition would improve structure.

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 destructive, open-world payment-verification gateway with no output schema, the description covers pricing, credential requirements, profile scope, and the authoritative starting endpoints. It is nearly complete, with the main gap remaining the undocumented input parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across all three parameters, so the description carries full responsibility but only vaguely alludes to them ('binds the presenter to the holder wallet', 'challenge_token' via /api/ap2-challenge). It never explains the expected form of 'presentation', 'challenge_token', or the fixed 'mode' value, leaving the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Verifies allowlisted AP2 direct closed-checkout mandates, binds the presenter to the holder wallet, rejects expiry and replay, and durably consumes each mandate once.' It also names its profile boundary (trusted-provider direct closed-checkout) which helps distinguish it from siblings like x402-payment-gateway. However, the first sentence leads with pricing rather than purpose, slightly diluting focus.

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 clearly defines an operating boundary ('No open mandates, delegation chains, checkout execution, payment execution or fund transfers') and points the agent to the entry endpoints ('Start at /api/ap2-contract and /api/ap2-challenge'). It states when the tool applies but never names a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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

All Wever Labs Agent Products toolsInspect
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