Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Scan agent payment endpoints (x402, AP2, L402, MPP, 402) for a trust grade A-F before paying.

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.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'attest_scan' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

With only one tool, the server feels too minimal for most use cases; a broader scope would require more tools.

Completeness2/5

The single scanning tool covers only one operation; missing features like history, configuration, or result management create significant gaps.

Available Tools

1 tool
attest_scanAInspect

Scan an agent payment endpoint (x402 / HTTP 402) and return a letter grade A to F with a safety verdict before paying.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe endpoint URL to scan.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans and returns a grade/verdict but does not specify whether the scan has side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and expected output. Every part is relevant and earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Minor missing details like idempotency do not significantly detract.

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% and the schema already describes the 'url' parameter as 'The endpoint URL to scan.' The description adds context about it being an agent payment endpoint, but this does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 scans an agent payment endpoint (x402/HTTP 402) and returns a letter grade A to F with a safety verdict. The verb 'scan' and resource 'agent payment endpoint' are specific, and the output is explicitly defined.

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?

The description implies usage context with 'before paying', indicating the tool should be used prior to making a payment. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. With no siblings, the implied context is sufficient.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources