Scan agent payment endpoints (x402, AP2, L402, MPP, 402) for a trust grade A-F before paying.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one verifies a specific 402 offer at spend time, the other scans an endpoint for a safety grade before paying. No overlap.
Both tools follow the same 'attest_' prefix with a verb (guard, scan), creating a predictable pattern.
With only 2 tools, the set is slightly small but appropriate for a focused payment verification utility; each tool serves a distinct and necessary step.
The two tools cover the core workflow of scanning an endpoint and verifying an offer. Minor gaps (e.g., historical checks) exist but the surface is adequate for the stated purpose.
attest_guardAInspectVerify a live 402 payment offer at the moment of spend. Pass the EXACT offer you just received (url, payTo, amount, asset, network) and get an allow / warn / block verdict with machine-readable reasons: wallet mismatch vs the verified payout wallet, price swaps vs the last verified quote, danger flags, blocklisted wallets, and typosquats. Call this AFTER receiving a 402 offer and BEFORE authorizing the payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The endpoint URL you are about to pay. | |
| asset | Yes | Asset contract address or symbol from the offer. | |
| payTo | Yes | The payout address presented in the live 402 offer. | |
| amount | Yes | The offered amount in atomic units, as a string. | |
| scheme | No | Optional payment scheme (e.g. exact). | |
| network | Yes | Network / chain identifier from the offer (e.g. base, solana). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return verdict types (allow/warn/block) and reasons (mismatch, swaps, flags, blocklists, typosquats). No annotation provided, so description carries full burden; it does well but could mention if it mutates state (likely not).
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every word adds value.
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 no output schema, description explains return value format. Covers when to use, what to pass, and expected output for a 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage.
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% but description adds vital context: 'Pass the EXACT offer you just received', ensuring precise use. Also clarifies 'scheme' as optional beyond 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 clearly states the tool verifies a live 402 payment offer, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'offer'. It distinguishes from sibling 'attest_scan' by focusing on spend-time verification.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this AFTER receiving a 402 offer and BEFORE authorizing the payment', providing clear temporal context. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives, but sibling context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
attest_scanAInspectScan an agent payment endpoint (x402 / HTTP 402) and return a letter grade A to F with a safety verdict before paying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The endpoint URL to scan. |
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 the return (grade and verdict) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or safety implications beyond the scan result. Moderate transparency.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, resource, output, and usage timing. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. Minor gap: could mention whether the scan is safe or verbose, but overall sufficient.
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 a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the action (scan), the resource (agent payment endpoint with x402/HTTP 402 context), and the output (letter grade A-F plus safety verdict). It clearly distinguishes 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?
The description states 'before paying' which implies when to use. However, it does not provide exclusions or alternatives, though no sibling tools exist. The context is clear.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.