laen
Server Details
On-demand unblocking for AI agents: find blockers free, pay via x402 on Base, get anchored proof.
- 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 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: finding blockers, getting payment details, and resolving with payment. No overlap in functionality.
All tools use the consistent 'laen_' prefix with clear verb_noun naming (find_blockers, quote, resolve). Naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core workflow. It might lack depth for more complex scenarios.
The tools cover the essential lifecycle: search, get payment requirements, and resolve. Minor gaps like listing all blockers are acceptable for this focused domain.
Available Tools
3 toolslaen_find_blockersCInspect
FREE. Search LAEN's live blocker feed (universal blocker schema) for execution blockers matching a failure signature. Returns fundable blockers with gap_type, failing_assertion, resolution_contract (x402), resolution_state (KNOWN_RESOLUTION = instant), and measured latency where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max results (default 10) | |
| subject | No | subject/entity name to match (e.g. a vendor, product, or host) | |
| gap_type | No | e.g. provenance_chain_break, unverified_safety_recall | |
| identifier | No | identifier/URL substring to match (e.g. api.example.com) | |
| obligation_class | No | safety | ai_governance | regulatory | ... |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions that the tool returns certain fields. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits beyond the operation itself.
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 relatively concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the notable 'FREE' indicator. However, some content is tangential or could be integrated better.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values; it does list key fields. However, it lacks details on how 'failure signature' maps to parameters, and sibling tools are not addressed. Some operational context is missing.
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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by listing return fields but does not elaborate on how to use parameters or provide examples.
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 clearly states the tool searches LAEN's blocker feed for execution blockers matching a failure signature, and lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools laen_quote and laen_resolve.
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?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, default behavior, or exclusions. The 'FREE' hint is the only contextual clue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
laen_quoteAInspect
FREE. Get the price and EXACT x402 payment requirements for resolving one blocker. Use the returned requirements.accepts[0] to construct/sign your payment with your own x402 client (e.g. x402-fetch createPaymentHeader). Never share keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | receipt $0.25 (evidence) | certificate $0.50 (evidence + fresh anchored receipt w/ verify_url) | |
| blocker_id | Yes | the blocker/obligation id (obl_<16hex>) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses that the tool is FREE and returns payment requirements, but lacks details on failure modes, side effects, or prerequisites beyond blocker existence.
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?
Extremely concise with four short sentences, each delivering critical information. Front-loaded with 'FREE' and verb, no wasted words.
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?
No output schema; description partially explains return structure (requirements.accepts[0]) but lacks full output details or error behaviors. Adequate for a simple quote tool but incomplete for robust agent use.
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% with parameter descriptions already present. Description does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states it gets price and exact payment requirements for resolving a blocker, using specific verbs and resource. Distinguishes from siblings (laen_find_blockers searches, laen_resolve executes).
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?
Provides explicit instructions on how to use the returned data (use accepts[0] to construct payment) and a warning about keys. However, does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
laen_resolveAInspect
PAID (your wallet). Submit your SIGNED x402 payment payload (the base64 X-PAYMENT header value your client produced for this blocker's requirements) and receive the resolution: independently verifiable evidence (+ anchored certificate with verify_url if product=certificate). Fail-closed: no valid settled payment, no evidence. Without x_payment this returns the 402 requirements so you can pay and retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | ||
| x_payment | No | base64 X-PAYMENT payload signed by YOUR wallet for this blocker's x402 requirements | |
| blocker_id | Yes | the blocker/obligation id (obl_<16hex>) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses fail-closed behavior (no payment = no evidence), conditional output based on product parameter, and mentions independent verifiability. Does not cover request limits or error cases but sufficiently covers core behavior.
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?
Relatively concise (3 sentences) with key information front-loaded. The opening 'PAID (your wallet)' is a minor distraction but does not harm clarity. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage flow, and conditional behavior.
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?
Given no output schema, description explains return values (independently verifiable evidence, option for certificate with verify_url). Covers the full flow including fallback when x_payment is missing. No apparent gaps for a 3-parameter payment resolution tool.
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 67%; description adds meaning by explaining x_payment as signed base64 value and product as influencing output type (receipt vs certificate with verify_url). Blocker_id format is explained in schema, and description does not repeat but context is adequate.
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 clearly states the action: submit a signed x402 payment payload and receive resolution (evidence or certificate). It distinguishes from siblings laen_find_blockers and laen_quote by focusing on payment completion and resolution retrieval.
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?
Provides explicit flow: without x_payment it returns 402 requirements to retry, and with valid payment it returns evidence. Implicitly tells when to use it (after receiving a blocker requiring payment) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.
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!