Skip to main content
Glama

ZadenWorks

by io.github.ZadenGG

batch_pages

Run a mix of read_page/watch_page/verify_claim/compare_pages/extract_tables operations behind a SINGLE payment instead of paying for each one separately — use this whenever you need to process more than one URL, since it saves you multiple payment negotiations. Each item needs an 'op' ("read", "watch", "verify", "compare", or "tables") plus that op's required fields (url for read/watch/verify/tables, urlA+urlB for compare, claim for verify). Sized by weight, not item count: read/watch/verify/tables = 1 unit each, compare = 2 units (it loads two pages); total weight per call must be ≤ 6. Paid: $0.05 flat per call (a discount vs paying per-item) in USDC on Base via x402 — call once without x_payment to receive the payment challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
x_paymentNoOptional X-PAYMENT header value from a completed x402 payment. Omit on first call to receive the payment challenge; complete the payment with your x402 wallet tooling, then retry with this set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the payment flow, including the first unpaid call to receive a challenge, the flat fee, and the weight-based sizing. It does not mention side effects or data retention, but the operations are read/watch/verify/compare/extract, which are non-destructive by nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is mostly clear but repeats the weight and pricing details twice, making it longer than necessary. The structure is logical, but trimming redundant sentences would improve focus.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description still provides enough context about supported operations, required fields, payment behavior, and weight limits. It does not describe result formats, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The main parameters (items and x_payment) are explained, and the nested op-specific fields are partially described in the schema. However, optional fields like key, selector, includeLinks, and maxRowsPerTable are not explained beyond their names and type constraints, leaving some ambiguity about their intended usage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool batches multiple page operations into a single payment, with explicit verbs like 'run a mix of' and 'process more than one URL'. It also distinguishes this from paying per operation individually.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this whenever processing more than one URL and explains the savings on payment negotiations. It also lists the supported operations and which fields each op requires, making selection straightforward.

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

All ZadenWorks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from SEO audits to link checking, content comparison, accessibility scans, structured data validation, and claim verification. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_seo, check_links, compare_pages). Minor deviations like rank_x402_services and list_rank_categories are slightly less uniform but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a broad but focused range of web page analysis and auditing workflows without feeling bloated. The count is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized service.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the domain: covers SEO, sitemaps, links, content, rendering, accessibility, structured data, claims, and monitoring. No critical dead ends or obvious missing operations for typical use cases.

Resources