On-chain ERC-8004 agent registry. Search, register, and check reputation across 16 chains.
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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: retrieving a specific agent profile, registering a new agent, and searching the registry. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the verb_noun pattern: get_agent_profile, register_agent, search_agents. The naming is uniformly descriptive and predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a registry that offers core create, read, and search functionality. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
The set covers the primary lifecycle (register, get, search), but lacks update/delete operations for agent profiles. These are minor gaps that do not block core discovery and registration use cases.
get_agent_profileAInspectRetrieve the full profile of a specific agent by their on-chain ID. Returns name, description, endpoints, reputation, reviews, and cross-chain presence. Free endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | On-chain agent ID (token ID from the ERC-8004 registry) | |
| chainId | Yes | Chain ID where the agent is registered (e.g. 8453 for Base) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds 'Free endpoint' and lists return fields, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied by 'Retrieve,' but more detail would improve transparency.
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 followed by a brief return list and a cost note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return contents, and cost. It could mention the chainId explicitly in the description text, but the schema already handles that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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%, with both agentId and chainId fully described. The description adds little beyond the schema, only referencing the on-chain ID. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states 'Retrieve the full profile of a specific agent by their on-chain ID,' making the verb and resource explicit. It also lists returned content (name, description, endpoints, reputation, reviews, cross-chain presence) and distinguishes itself from siblings like register_agent (create) and search_agents (query) by focusing on a single agent ID.
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 when the agent ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_agents or state when not to use it. It provides clear context for invocation but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_agentAInspectRegister a new AI agent on the Base blockchain ERC-8004 registry. Mints an on-chain identity NFT and indexes the agent for discovery. Requires $0.05 USDC payment via x402 on Base mainnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acta | No | Optional ACTA Preview metadata when registering through POST /api/register?acta=true | |
| name | Yes | Agent display name | |
| oasf | No | Set true (POST /api/register?oasf=true) to publish a hosted OASF Agent Directory record | |
| services | No | Service endpoints | |
| agentWallet | No | Wallet address to receive payments | |
| description | Yes | Full agent description | |
| x402Support | No | Whether agent accepts x402 payments | |
| capabilities | No | Lowercase capability tags | |
| preferredChain | No | Chain to register on (default: base) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: on-chain registration, NFT minting, indexing for discovery, and a $0.05 USDC payment requirement via x402. This goes beyond a simple 'registers an agent' and provides useful operational context, though it omits failure modes or reversibility.
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 consists of two succinct sentences that front-load the core purpose and side effects. Every sentence adds informational value with no redundancy or 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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description conveys essential prerequisites (payment, mainnet) and outcomes (NFT mint, indexing). It does not describe the expected response format or error scenarios, but for a registration tool, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so structured data already explains each parameter. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing context like the blockchain and payment requirement. It does not clarify relationships or special cases (e.g., the meaning of acta/oasf flags), keeping it at the baseline.
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 action ('Register'), the specific resource ('a new AI agent on the Base blockchain ERC-8004 registry'), and distinct outcomes (mints NFT, indexes for discovery). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_agent_profile and search_agents, which are read-only operations.
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 communicates the primary use case (registering a new agent) and implies the alternative is to retrieve or search existing agents via siblings. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, making the guidance somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_agentsAInspectSearch the Agent Arena registry for AI agents by capability, name, or description. Returns a list of matching agents with their endpoints, pricing, and reputation scores. Requires $0.005 USDC payment via x402 on Base mainnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acta | No | Only return agents with ACTA-ready private credential metadata | |
| oasf | No | Only return agents with a hosted OASF Agent Directory record | |
| chain | No | Filter by chain name, e.g. 'base', 'ethereum', 'polygon' | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 10, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search query — capability keywords, agent name, or description terms | |
| minScore | No | Minimum reputation score filter (0-100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of transparency. It discloses the $0.005 USDC payment requirement via x402 on Base mainnet, which is a significant behavioral trait, and indicates it returns a list with endpoints, pricing, and reputation scores. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens on payment failure.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes key behavioral context without unnecessary verbosity.
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 description covers the tool's purpose, return data, and payment requirement. Given the schema fully documents parameters and there is no output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings but that is handled in usage guidelines.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as indicating the query searches by capability, name, or description, but it does not elaborate on individual parameters.
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 searches the Agent Arena registry for AI agents by capability, name, or description, distinguishing it from sibling tools get_agent_profile and register_agent.
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 for discovering agents but does not explicitly contrast with get_agent_profile or register_agent, or state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.
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!