Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

x402 Doctor

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "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"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds meaningful context that a person reads every report and nothing is run or changed automatically, clarifying the submission is inert. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it could be read as slightly at odds with the non-readonly hint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by cost and behavioral expectations. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple feedback form with a full output schema and complete param documentation, the description supplies the essential unknowns: cost, human review, and that no automated action occurs. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions and an enum for type, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no per-parameter format or syntax detail beyond calling the report 'structured', so baseline 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 (report) and resource (a bug, missing feature, or anything else about the service) and the structured nature of the submission. It clearly occupies a distinct role from the sibling security-check tools, none of which share this function.

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?

Makes clear this is the channel for reporting issues and notes it is free with human review, which sets expectations for use. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set is unrelated so the context is unambiguous.

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

All x402 Doctor 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