TrustBench
Server Details
x402 provider rankings + Ed25519-signed payment receipts + signature verification (3 tools).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lithvall/TrustBench
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_rankings retrieves liveness rankings, get_receipt fetches a receipt by ID, and verify_receipt validates receipt signatures. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_rankings, get_receipt, verify_receipt. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is a reasonable count for a focused server dealing with rankings and receipt verification. It is slightly on the lower side but not too few, as each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
The tool set covers core operations: retrieving rankings and handling receipts (fetch and verify). However, there are notable gaps such as no tool to list receipts or query provider capabilities beyond rankings, which could limit agent workflows.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_rankingsARead-onlyInspect
Get TrustBench liveness rankings for x402 providers by capability. Returns a scored list of providers with latency and success-rate telemetry. Methodology note: scores are derived from HEAD-probe liveness checks (3 samples from one host), not a rigorous benchmark. See trustbench.io/methodology. Output: returns a JSON array. Each object has name (string, provider name), score (number 0-100, composite liveness score), latency_p50 (number, ms), success_rate (number 0.0-1.0, last 7 days), endpoint (string, URL), capabilities (array of strings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability | Yes | The provider capability to query rankings for. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by explaining the methodology (HEAD-probe checks from one host) and caveat about not being rigorous, which is beyond basic annotations.
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?
Extremely concise: three sentences front-load the core purpose, then add methodology and output details. Every sentence is necessary, no fluff.
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 read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, methodology, and output structure. Absence of output schema is compensated by describing return fields. No mention of pagination or limits, but acceptable given openWorldHint.
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 single enum parameter already described. The description merely mentions 'by capability' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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?
Description clearly states 'Get TrustBench liveness rankings for x402 providers by capability', specifying verb, resource, and scope. Siblings are distinct (get_receipt, verify_receipt), so no confusion.
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?
Provides context on what it returns and methodology but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. However, it implicitly guides usage by noting the methodology limitations and reference to trustbench.io.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_receiptARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch a TrustBench routing receipt by ID. Receipts are immutable, Ed25519-signed records of a routing or payment event. Use to verify what was paid, to whom, for what capability, and what the on-chain settlement reference is. IDs start with rcpt_ (Phase 3) or rrcpt_ (Phase 4). Output: returns the signed receipt envelope as JSON. Phase 3 (rcpt_) returns a SignedReceipt with receipt (call metadata + settlement ref) and signature (Ed25519 over JCS-canonicalized receipt body). Phase 4 (rrcpt_) returns {receipt, signature} where receipt.paid contains routing details and signature covers the canonical envelope. To verify an envelope offline use the verify_receipt tool with the returned JSON, or @trustbench/verify-receipt npm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes | The receipt ID, e.g. rcpt_01KQY7C44GAPSXZPFQYRZ1D10C or rrcpt_… |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds immutability, Ed25519 signing, and phase-specific structure beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).
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 well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly verbose with phase details; still every sentence 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?
Covers output format for both phases without output schema, explains ID conventions, and suggests verification alternatives. Complete and self-contained.
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 helpful context about ID prefixes (rcpt_ vs rrcpt_) and example values, enriching the 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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch a TrustBench routing receipt by ID' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool verify_receipt.
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 states when to use ('to verify what was paid...') and differentiates from verify_receipt for offline verification. Also notes ID format constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_receiptARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verify the Ed25519 signature on a TrustBench receipt. Two modes: (1) Lookup mode — pass receipt_id and the server fetches the receipt from trustbench.io and re-runs verification (handy when you only have an ID). (2) Offline mode — pass receipt_json (the full {receipt, signature} envelope an agent received from a third party) and the server verifies the Ed25519 signature against the published public key at trustbench.io/.well-known/trustbench-pubkey without trusting the database. Exactly one of receipt_id or receipt_json must be provided. Output: returns JSON with receipt_id, signature_valid (boolean), on_chain_verified (boolean, where present), signature_alg ("ed25519"), verify_url, pubkey_url. For non-server-mediated verification with no network round-trip, use the @trustbench/verify-receipt npm package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | No | Lookup mode: the receipt ID to fetch and verify. Mutually exclusive with receipt_json. | |
| receipt_json | No | Offline mode: a full signed-receipt envelope {receipt, signature} (or a Phase 3 SignedReceipt). Verified against the published Ed25519 public key without database lookup. Mutually exclusive with receipt_id. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the trust model (database trust in lookup, key-based trust in offline), the verification process, and output structure. No contradictions.
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 efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by mode explanations and output. Slightly dense but still clear.
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 lacking an output schema, the description lists all output fields and explains both modes thoroughly, including how to use them and an alternative for local verification.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the operational context of each parameter (e.g., receipt_json is a full envelope) and the mutual exclusivity, though the schema already covers this adequately.
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 Ed25519 signatures on TrustBench receipts, with two modes (lookup and offline). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_receipt and get_rankings which fetch data rather than verify.
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 explicitly explains when to use lookup mode (having only a receipt ID) versus offline mode (having a full receipt envelope), and provides an alternative npm package for non-mediated verification.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!