textokit-mcp

textokit_webhook_log_audit

Webhook log pattern audit. 0.01 USDC per call (x402, Base); an unpaid call returns the x402 payment requirements. Free sample: textokit_sample.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jsonl": "<jsonl>"
    },
    "name": "textokit_webhook_log_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jsonl`	Yes	Redacted JSONL objects with event_id (nonblank string, at…
`payment_signature`	No	Optional, legacy: base64 x402 v2 payment payload. Preferred: params._meta["x402/payment"]. Never a private key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide useful access behavior: cost, x402/Base payment, unpaid response behavior, and a free sample alternative. However, it does not disclose whether the audit is read-only, what happens to submitted logs, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose before payment details, with no obvious filler. The first sentence is a terse fragment, so it is efficient but slightly under-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the audit result and relevant behavior. It covers payment and a sample alternative but leaves the core audit operation and return values opaque.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters and their constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the payment context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource area, "Webhook log pattern audit," but does not explain what the audit actually detects or returns. It also does not differentiate this tool from related siblings such as textokit_sample or payment/help tools.

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?

It mentions a free sample via textokit_sample, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this audit versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond payment. The agent must infer the use case from the name.

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

All textokit-mcp tools Inspect

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.