Skip to main content
Glama

KnownFix

by io.github.b-hash88

Redeem a premium skill or bundle

get_skill

Get or redeem a premium skill or multi-fix bundle after choosing with list_skills. Call with the id alone to receive the free outline, dollar price, signed Base Pay USDC and exact-ETH offers, and one pay-and-redeem action. After payment, call once more with the matching paymentTx and private paymentOffer for the complete SKILL.md or assembled bundle decision tree, fix bodies, verification commands, update guidance, and sources. Do not use this for individual fixes; call get_fix instead. Never pay again merely because an existing proof is pending or denied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExact skill or bundle id from list_skills.
paymentTxNoBase Pay UserOperation hash for USDC or Base transaction hash for ETH.
paymentOfferNoPrivate signed bearer token from get_offer; never publish it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
viaNo
errorNo
titleNo
deniedNo
formatNo
soldToNo
receiptNoMachine-readable receipt derived by KnownFix after signed-offer and Base proof verification; never accepted from caller input.
skillMdNoFull assembled Markdown. Bundles include their decision tree, included fix bodies, commands, verification guidance, and sources.
citationNoKnownFix source attribution request returned with the purchased good.
priceUsdNo
priceWeiNo
purchaseNo
nextActionNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description clearly discloses the two-phase redemption behavior, what the first call returns, what the follow-up call requires, and the need to keep the private paymentOffer confidential. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four dense sentences cover purpose, usage flow, exclusions, and a payment-safety warning without repetition or filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid redemption flow with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the exact two-step call sequence, expected outputs before and after payment, alternative routing to get_fix, and a crucial financial caution. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the temporal relationship between parameters: id alone first, then matching paymentTx and paymentOffer after payment. This helps an agent understand how to sequence the parameters in practice.

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 opens with a specific action ('Get or redeem a premium skill or multi-fix bundle') and a clear prerequisite ('after choosing with list_skills'). It explicitly contrasts itself with get_fix, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from a similarly named sibling.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after list_skills, with the two-phase call pattern. It also provides a direct when-not-to-use rule ('Do not use this for individual fixes; call get_fix instead') and a safety warning about not paying again when a proof is pending or denied.

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

All KnownFix 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources or actions, and cross-references like 'use get_fix instead' sharply reduce confusion. A minor source of ambiguity is the cluster of redemption/offer tools (get_fix, get_skill, get_offer) and the three status-check tools, but their descriptions disambiguate them well.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_, check_, get_, list_, order_, request_, search_, submit_. The naming style is uniform and predictable across different domains.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the surface is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but remains justified given the server's broad scope: catalog browsing, paid redemption, audits, services, requests, submissions, and checkout support. It is dense but not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle coverage is strong: discover, get, request, submit, check status, order, pay, and redeem are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation/refund path, no way to update a submitted fix, and merch ordering delegated entirely to an external storefront.

Resources