x402-scraper-api
Server Details
Programmatic web-scraping MCP server powered by x402 micro-transactions on Base.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- ihen404/x402-scraper-api
- GitHub Stars
- 0
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The single tool's purpose—scraping and extracting text from a URL—is unambiguous.
A single tool named 'scrape' follows a clear verb convention and cannot be inconsistent with itself. There is no mixed naming pattern to evaluate.
One tool is slightly thin for a general API, but it is reasonable for a specialized scraper endpoint that performs a single core operation. The scope appears intentionally narrow rather than incomplete.
The tool covers the core scraping workflow—fetching, parsing, and extracting clean text from any public URL. Minor gaps might include batch scraping or handling non-text formats, but none are essential for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
1 toolscrapeAInspect
Scrape, parse, and extract clean text content from any public web URL. [x402 Protocol: $0.001 USDC on Base]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target web URL to scrape |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the paid model (x402, $0.001 USDC on Base), which an agent needs before invoking, but omits other behavioral traits: JS rendering, timeouts, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens on non-public URLs.
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 the core action and output, followed by the cost disclosure. No filler.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and pricing. Minor gaps remain around error/failure behavior and content-type handling, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.
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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the url argument. The description adds no format or constraint detail (e.g., scheme requirements, redirect handling) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States specific verbs (scrape, parse, extract), the resource (any public web URL), and the output (clean text content). No siblings exist to differentiate from, so this fully identifies the tool's job.
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?
'Any public web URL' implies the applicable scope and implicitly excludes non-public/authenticated pages, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or stated alternatives. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
scrape
Related MCP Connectors
Monetize any MCP server: x402 paywall, pay-per-call billing in USDC on Base, agent marketplace.
SqueezeOS MCP for live machine discovery and x402-paid USDC APIs on Base.
Production-grade MCP gateway delivering 8 real-time AI tools with instant x402 micropayments settled in USDC on Base Mainnet or SPL-USDC on Solana. Features Basescan contract auditing, wallet analytics, headless browser scraping, and pre-scraped oracle data feeds.
Production-grade MCP gateway delivering 8 real-time AI tools with instant x402 micropayments settled in USDC on Base Mainnet or SPL-USDC on Solana. Features Basescan contract auditing, wallet analytics, headless browser scraping, and pre-scraped oracle data feeds.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that lets AI agents scrape web pages as clean markdown for a micro-payment in USDC, using the x402 protocol on Base network. No API keys or signup required.MIT

nanoparse-mcpofficial
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that enables AI agents to fetch web content as clean, structured Markdown via NanoParse's hosted API, using x402 micropayments in USDC on Base.125 npmMIT- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that executes headless web scraping and ephemeral secret vaults, settling micro-transactions natively on Base Mainnet via the x402 protocol.4699 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server providing 50+ crypto, market intelligence, and AI inference endpoints with x402 pay-per-request micropayments on Base.1Apache 2.0
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.