Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

akari-x402

by io.github.edvyno
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

akari_akash_deploy_kit

Akash deployment kit — the exact SDL, boot-test and lease runbook we used to put a live container on Akash, including the four failure modes that cost us real attempts: deposits must be uact not uakt, the BME minimum mint is 10 ACT, akash 2.1.2 has no provider subcommand, and provider-services takes the node as an env var not a flag. Drop in your image and port, get a working manifest plus a verified proof URI from our own lease.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "akari_akash_deploy_kit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no behavioral traits beyond a list of gotchas. Notably it says 'drop in your image and port, get a working manifest' while the schema accepts zero parameters, so the described interaction cannot happen — a misleading claim about behavior.

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 failure-mode list is genuinely useful and front-loaded information, but the surrounding marketing framing ('the exact ... we used to put a live container', 'cost us real attempts', 'from our own lease') pads a short payload. Roughly half the text earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must fully specify what comes back; it names deliverables (SDL, manifest, proof URI, runbook) but not their form or whether they are returned inline or as files. The stated failure modes are substantive and partially compensate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema is empty (0 params), which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description actively asserts the caller supplies 'your image and port.' That contradicts the schema and would lead an agent to look for inputs that do not exist, so it detracts rather than adds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as an Akash deployment kit containing SDL, boot-test, and a lease runbook, but never states the concrete action the tool performs (does it return a document, a file, a template, generated config?). 'Deployment kit' is a bundle noun rather than a verb+resource, so an agent cannot confidently predict the output.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, despite a sibling named akari_launch_kit that sounds closely related. The 'drop in your image and port' phrasing implies an interactive workflow without saying when that workflow is appropriate or what preconditions exist.

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

All akari-x402 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources