agentic-commerce-catalog
Server Details
AI music, video, image, and voice tools callable by agents with USDC payments via x402 on Base.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 2.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct media type (image, video, music) with no overlap, making them clearly distinguishable.
Two tools use the 'agent_' prefix (agent_image, agent_video) while the third uses 'create_' (create_music), showing inconsistency in naming pattern.
With only 3 tools, the set is lean but may be appropriate for a focused media creation service; however, the server name 'catalog' suggests broader functionality that would typically require more tools.
The tools only cover creation of three media types, missing essential catalog operations like listing, searching, or managing creations, which are implied by the server name.
Available Tools
3 toolsagent_imageCInspect
agent_image — $0.05 USDC via x402 on Base (chain 8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral info (cost and payment method), but fails to disclose other important behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or output format.
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?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but omits critical information about what the tool does, making it less useful despite brevity.
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?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's action or return value, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use it correctly.
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?
The tool has no parameters and the schema is fully covered (100% trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters, so it adequately fulfills this dimension.
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 implies image generation via the name 'agent_image' and mentions a cost, but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Generate an image'). It is somewhat clear but lacks direct statement of purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like agent_video or create_music. The cost hint provides minimal context but no explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_videoCInspect
agent_video — $1.50 USDC via x402 on Base (chain 8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | Optional random seed for reproducible renders. | |
| model | No | Optional model preset variant. Leave unset for the default. | |
| prompt | Yes | Narrative or visual prompt to drive the music video concept. | |
| asyncMode | No | If true, return immediately while the video renders asynchronously. | |
| resolution | No | Target rendering resolution. | |
| aspectRatio | No | Desired frame aspect ratio. | |
| durationSeconds | No | Clip length in seconds (default 8). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses the cost and chain, but with no annotations, it leaves out important behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or the behavior of asyncMode. The brief description adds minimal behavioral info.
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?
The description is concise but at the expense of clarity. It is not structured to highlight key information beyond pricing.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely lacking. It only provides pricing, leaving out behavior, return values, and usage context.
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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 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 only mentions a cost and payment method, not the actual function. From the input schema, it appears to generate a music video, but the description fails to state this explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like agent_music or cover. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_musicDInspect
create_music — $0.20 USDC via x402 on Base (chain 8453).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Comma-separated keywords to tag the generated file. | |
| style | No | Specific musical style or genre tag (e.g., 'Hip Hop', 'Ambient', 'Rock'). Helping the AI focus on a specific sound. | |
| lyrics | No | Your custom lyrics. Required if custom_mode is true. | |
| prompt | Yes | Describe the song you want to create. Include genre, mood, instruments, and any specific vibe. Example: 'Upbeat 80s synthwave with driving bass and neon atmosphere' or 'A melancholic acoustic guitar ballad about rain'. | |
| custom_mode | No | Set to true to use your own lyrics provided in the 'lyrics' field. | |
| vocal_gender | No | Preferred gender for the vocalist ('m' for male, 'f' for female). | |
| durationSeconds | No | Duration of the track in seconds. Defaults to a full-length song. | |
| make_instrumental | No | If true, generates a track without vocals. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description only discloses cost/payment method. It does not disclose that the tool generates AI music, any destructive actions, or required authentication. The key behavioral aspect (generation) is missing.
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?
The description is very short but misses essential purpose and usage context. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool does, its inputs, or expected outputs. It is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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?
Description merely repeats the tool name and adds payment details ('$0.20 USDC via x402 on Base'). It does not explicitly state that it generates music or what the output is, relying solely on the name for purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use create_music vs sibling tools (agent_music, agent_video). The description lacks context about scenarios or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$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!