Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Wever Labs Agent Products

by io.github.CodeWever
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Public surface check

wever_public-surface-check
Read-only

Agent Access: submit a site’s public layer as an anonymous visiting agent meets it: every entry point (manifest, llms.txt, agent card, OpenAPI description, MCP server, tool, page, endpoint or feed) with the authentication it needs (none, optional or required), whether it is machine readable, what it tells a visitor (offering, next step, authentication requirements, terms, contact, pricing) and what a visitor can do or see through it (describe, read, search, quote, transact, write, personal or account data). The signed report names every discovery gap, where an anonymous agent cannot find a machine-readable entry, tell what is offered, learn how to proceed or learn what authentication the transactional layer needs, and every leak, where a transaction, a write or personal or account data is reachable without authentication. One agent card’s completeness is wever_agent-card-check and an offer across every discovery surface is wever_discovery-coverage-check. Verdict leaks_found, discovery_gaps, surface_unverified or discoverable_and_contained. POST /api/public-surface-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-access-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-access/.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
entriesYesEvery entry point of the public layer.
surfaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: it discloses that no network request or external write occurs (reinforcing openWorldHint=false), that the report is Ed25519-signed, the x402 pricing and free-call allowance, and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement. The four verdict values are also disclosed. It does not explain how entries are validated or what happens when the 100-entry cap is exceeded.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is an extremely long enumeration that is hard to parse, and enum values are repeated from the schema. The operational details (endpoint, price, header binding, receipt) earn their place; the duplicated field vocabulary does not.

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 nested-object input with no output schema, the definition covers the purpose, the verdict taxonomy, the signed-report return, access/payment mechanics, and the contract URL. Gaps are minor: no guidance on error behavior, entry limits, or how partial/unverified surfaces should be represented.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents label, entries, tells, and capabilities. The description largely restates the same enum values (offering, next step, terms, contact, pricing) and capability list rather than clarifying them. The nested `surface` object, which has only a name, is not explained at all, and `kind` values are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (submit/check) and resource (a site's public layer as an anonymous visiting agent sees it), then enumerates exactly what is assessed (entry points, authentication, machine readability, what is told, what is exposed). It explicitly names two siblings and how they differ: wever_agent-card-check covers one card's completeness, wever_discovery-coverage-check covers an offer across every discovery surface.

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?

Names the two closest alternatives and the scope each covers, which is enough for an agent to route between them. It does not state explicit exclusion conditions (e.g. when not to run a surface check at all) or prerequisites beyond the wallet-proof binding.

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