Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PlainText Wallet Approval Checker

by io.github.Fizzl13
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback (free)

feedback

Report a bug, a missing feature or anything else about this service, in a structured way. Free. A person reads every report; nothing is run or changed automatically.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug, feature (something missing) or other
contactNoOptional: how to reach you about it
messageYesWhat happened or what you need
endpointNoOptional: the route or tool it is about, e.g. /v1/token

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesReport id, to refer to it later
noteNo
typeNo
serviceNo
receivedYestrue: a person will read it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Report id, to refer to it later",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "received": {
+      "description": "true: a person will read it",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "service": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "received",
+    "id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral profile, and it does: the tool is free, a human reads every report, and no automated side effects occur. What's missing is any note on response behavior or follow-up expectations, but the core non-destructive, human-reviewed nature is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the action and its scope front-loaded ahead of the supporting behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple four-parameter submission tool, the description covers purpose and side-effect profile adequately, though it doesn't tell the agent what to expect after submitting.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents message, type, contact, and endpoint. The description adds no field-level syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: "Report a bug, a missing feature or anything else about this service." The purpose is unambiguous and the sibling tools (check_wallet_approvals, explain_approval) are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed.

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 description makes clear this is the channel for bug reports, feature requests, and general issues, and adds a key condition: nothing is run or changed automatically, so an agent shouldn't expect remediation. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives appear, but the sibling set makes those unnecessary.

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

All PlainText Wallet Approval Checker 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