Paid Base swap safety checks and quotes with free asset and execution verification.
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 3.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: preflight safety check, quote generation, asset listing, and execution verification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_base_swap, get_safe_swap_quote, list_supported_assets, verify_swap_execution. The verbs and nouns are clear and uniform.
Four tools is well-scoped for the SafeRoute domain, covering the essential pre-trade, quote, informational, and post-trade verification steps without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the safe swap workflow: safety preflight, quoting, asset discovery, and execution verification. Since execution is noncustodial (buyer signs/broadcasts), no additional swap-execution tool is needed.
check_base_swapCInspectWallet-free approved-token Base swap safety preflight. Costs $0.001 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| intentId | No | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| sourceAgentId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.001 USDC) and wallet-free nature, but omits any details about what the safety check does, return values, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is minimal and insufficient for an agent to anticipate 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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with key qualifiers ('Wallet-free', 'approved-token', 'safety preflight'). It wastes no words while including cost, which is useful. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity on behavioral 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?
The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no operational context. It does not explain what a 'preflight' involves, what success/failure looks like, prerequisites, or how the cost is applied. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent is left without any meaning for 'amount', 'intentId', 'referralCode', or 'sourceAgentId'. Even though from/to have enums, the description adds nothing about how these are used or formatted.
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's function as a 'swap safety preflight' for approved tokens on Base, and adds constraints like wallet-free and cost. It distinguishes from siblings like get_safe_swap_quote (which likely provides quotes) and verify_swap_execution (which verifies after execution), but could be more explicit about what 'safety preflight' actually returns.
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 vs alternatives. It implies use before a swap but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (beyond approved tokens), or when to choose get_safe_swap_quote or verify_swap_execution instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_safe_swap_quoteCInspectSafety-checked noncustodial Base swap quote. Costs $0.01 USDC; the buyer signs and broadcasts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| wallet | Yes | ||
| intentId | No | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| executionMode | No | ||
| sourceAgentId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the tool is noncustodial, requires a $0.01 USDC fee, and that the buyer signs and broadcasts the transaction. However, it does not explain what 'safety-checked' entails, failure modes, quote expiration, or other behavioral details beyond the basic cost and execution model.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds cost and custody details. Both clauses convey meaningful information without wasted words. It is conciseness, though not under-specification to the point of being unhelpful.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It leaves out how quotes are returned, error conditions, parameter details, and execution semantics beyond 'buyer signs and broadcasts.' The mention of a fee and noncustodial nature provides a little context, but major gaps remain for an agent to invoke 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?
The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. It doesn't explain the format of 'amount', the role of 'wallet', the meaning of 'executionMode', or how optional parameters like 'intentId' and 'referralCode' affect behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 identifies the tool as providing a swap quote on Base with safety checks and noncustodial execution. It implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like check_base_swap and verify_swap_execution by its focus on quoting, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns a quote.'
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 implies use for obtaining a swap quote on Base, and mentions the $0.01 USDC cost and that the buyer signs and broadcasts, which hints at execution expectations. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to use get_safe_swap_quote instead of check_base_swap or verify_swap_execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_supported_assetsAInspectList SafeRoute's seven approved Base assets, limits, fees, and execution modes. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool is free and lists the specific information returned (approved assets, limits, fees, execution modes), providing useful content beyond a mere 'list'. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or any potential access restrictions.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, content, and cost in a highly efficient manner. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
For a parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it names the output content and notes that it is free. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the information returned. Minor gaps such as read-only confirmation and format details are not critical given the simplicity.
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, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by specifying what will be returned, which is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: SafeRoute's seven approved Base assets, along with limits, fees, and execution modes. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its swap-related siblings.
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 implies usage as a first step before interacting with swap/quote tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_swap_executionBInspectVerify a standard-mode SafeRoute Base execution against its signed receipt. Free; referral payouts remain disabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | ||
| transactionHash | Yes | ||
| receiptSignature | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only that the tool is free and disables referral payouts, but does not describe side effects, return behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. 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?
Description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a concise behavioral note. 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?
Complexity is moderate with 3 required params and a nested object, but no output schema and no annotations. Description does not explain how to construct the receipt, what transactionHash refers to, or expected response. Minimal guidance for correct invocation.
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 only mentions 'signed receipt', providing minimal meaning for receipt and receiptSignature. transactionHash is not explained, and receipt structure is unclear. Description does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Verify' and identifies exact resource: 'standard-mode SafeRoute Base execution' against 'signed receipt'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_base_swap and get_safe_swap_quote.
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?
Description gives context that this verifies execution against a signed receipt, but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like check_base_swap or get_safe_swap_quote. The note 'Free; referral payouts remain disabled' hints at limitations but lacks explicit guidance.
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!
