MCP 401 Auth Fix | github PAT wiring | x402
Server Details
github-mcp 401? PAT wiring. Proof before pay. x402 USDC Base. 15 min free.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- This-Is-Hellgate/secondeye-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 2.1/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the lounge/survival domain (entry, catalog, ordering, pricing, laws, verification, exit, etc.). There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Most tools use a verb_noun pattern (enter_lounge, leave_with_receipt, read_laws), but 'github_mcp_401_fix' is a notable outlier that does not follow any verb convention, and 'proof_bar' is ambiguous.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a system covering session management, catalog, ordering, pricing, verification, and logging. No tool appears redundant.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: enter, explore, order, pay/verify, pause, and exit. Minor gaps like order updates or history might exist but are not essential for the core workflow.
Available Tools
11 toolsenter_loungeCInspect
Start session + work stamp
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies state changes (session start, work stamp) but does not clarify permissions, side effects, or reversibility. Insufficient for agent decision-making.
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 extremely short (3 words), but this is underspecification rather than efficient conciseness. Critical information about what 'work stamp' entails is omitted.
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of related sibling tools (e.g., 'leave_with_receipt'), the description fails to explain how 'enter_lounge' fits into the workflow or what the 'work stamp' represents. Incomplete for effective 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?
The single parameter 'agent_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description 'Start session + work stamp' only weakly implies that the tool requires an agent identifier, adding minimal semantic value 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 'Start session + work stamp' gives a vague idea of the tool's function but does not clearly define what starting a session or 'work stamp' means. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like 'leave_with_receipt'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'fetch_catalog' or 'order_service'. The description lacks context clues for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch_catalogDInspect
Lounge + legacy tool packs
| 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 and a one-phrase description, the tool's behavioral traits are completely opaque. It does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or any other important 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?
The description is extremely short but not effectively concise—it is cryptic and lacks structure. 'Lounge + legacy tool packs' does not form a complete sentence and fails to communicate the tool's purpose efficiently.
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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and any meaningful description, the tool is severely underdocumented. An agent cannot determine when or why to use this tool based on the provided information.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is empty, but it does not hinder understanding either.
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 'Lounge + legacy tool packs' hints at the resource but lacks a verb to clarify the action. It does not clearly state what the tool does, and the verb 'fetch' in the name is not reinforced. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like 'read_menu' but offers no specificity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_menu' or 'read_laws'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
github_mcp_401_fixDInspect
Shortcut PAT/401 → mcp-wiring
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| error_detail | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool's behavioral traits are entirely undisclosed. 'Fix' implies mutation, but no details about side effects, permissions, or reversibility are given.
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 extremely concise (5 words) but at the cost of clarity. It does not effectively communicate tool functionality; it is underspecified rather than efficient.
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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context for correct invocation. It is wholly inadequate.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'session_id' and 'error_detail'. Their purpose and usage are completely unexplained.
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 'Shortcut PAT/401 → mcp-wiring' is cryptic and lacks a clear verb+resource structure. It hints at fixing a PAT 401 error but does not explicitly state what the tool does, leaving its purpose ambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'read_laws' or 'order_service'. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
leave_with_receiptDInspect
Exit with receipt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, safety, permissions, or any constraints beyond a vague 'exit' action. This is insufficient.
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 short but not effectively concise; it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It fails to be informative, so the minimal length is a flaw rather than a virtue.
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 the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the tool's function and the parameter's role. It does neither, making it contextually incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the sole parameter 'session_id'. The parameter's type and purpose are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic context.
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 'Exit with receipt' is a noun phrase rather than a full verb+resource statement. It vaguely suggests leaving and receiving a receipt, but lacks specificity about the exact action. It is slightly better than a tautology but still unclear.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'enter_lounge' or 'order_service'. The description gives no context for appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
order_serviceDInspect
Survival services by slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Survival services by slug', failing to indicate whether the tool is read-only or mutating, side effects, required permissions, 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 short but severely under-specified. It lacks essential information, making it unhelpful despite its 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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition is completely inadequate. It provides almost no context for the agent to understand or use the tool 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meaning or constraints of 'slug' or 'session_id'. Without parameter details, the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool.
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 'Survival services by slug' is vague and does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., order, retrieve, update). The tool name suggests ordering, but the description lacks clarity and fails to differentiate from siblings like 'read_menu' or 'fetch_catalog'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage relative to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
patron_activityBInspect
Have other agents bought here? Recent purchases + proof links
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Recent purchases' but does not specify data freshness, whether it's read-only, authorization needs, or any side effects. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
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 a single 11-word sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core question. It efficiently conveys the purpose, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief but lacks detail on what 'proof links' are, how recent 'recent' is, and what the return format looks like. Completeness is low for an agent needing to anticipate output.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% by default). The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by stating the tool's purpose and output (proof links). No further parameter explanation is needed.
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 'Have other agents bought here? Recent purchases + proof links' clearly indicates the tool shows recent purchases by other agents with links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like order_service (placing orders) and enter_lounge, though the phrase 'proof links' is slightly vague.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like fetch_catalog, order_service, and read_menu exist but no comparative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pause_and_routeDInspect
POST stuck state → routed service
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only implies a transformation from 'stuck state' to 'routed service'. No details on side effects, permissions, or mutability are given.
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 extremely short but not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified and lacks necessary details. It prioritizes brevity over clarity.
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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, its inputs, or its outcomes.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (task, state, session_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.
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 'POST stuck state → routed service' is vague and cryptic. It does not clearly specify a verb and resource, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools. It barely conveys the tool's 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
proof_barBInspect
Verify lounge live before paying
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'verify' but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure, or any authentication or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool 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?
The description is a single, short sentence (5 words) with no clutter. Every word is essential, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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, the description should explain what 'verify' returns or implies. It does not describe the result format, error states, or what 'lounge live' means concretely. Thus incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none. No additional meaning needed.
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 states a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('lounge live status') with a clear context ('before paying'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, the term 'live' could be more explicit (e.g., 'operational' or 'active').
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'enter_lounge', 'fetch_catalog'). The description lacks any conditional or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_lawsDInspect
Deterministic lounge laws
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavior. The phrase 'Deterministic lounge laws' offers no insight into effects, side effects, or safety. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or has side effects.
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 extremely short, but it is not concise; it is under-specified. A concise description would be brief yet informative, whereas this lacks necessary details.
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 the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is grossly incomplete. The tool's role in the lounge context is not clarified.
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?
With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, but the description adds no meaningful explanation of what the tool does. Understanding the purpose is crucial with zero parameters, and the description fails to provide that.
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 'Deterministic lounge laws' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It hints at reading laws but lacks specifics about the action or resource. The name 'read_laws' suggests reading, but the description fails to clarify.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_menu' or 'read_pricing'. No context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_pricingBInspect
Session + service pricing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the resource type without clarifying read-only nature, authentication needs, or response format. The name implies a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated.
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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded with key information. Every word serves a purpose, though it could potentially benefit from slight expansion to improve clarity.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It conveys the core purpose but lacks details such as the format of pricing data or any conditions. Adequate for a no-parameter tool but could be more informative.
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?
There are zero parameters in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 'Session + service pricing' clearly indicates the resource scope (pricing for sessions and services). The tool name includes 'read', so the verb is implied. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_menu' and 'read_laws', which cover different domains.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names suggest distinct categories (e.g., 'read_menu' for menu pricing), so usage context is implied but not articulated.
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!