jwt_decode
Decode a JWT header+payload with safety flags (never verifies the signature) ($0.001 USDC on Base, x402)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | JWT to decode |
sigtap Agent Tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the critical non-obvious behavior that the signature is never verified, and it discloses a fee. The 'safety flags' phrase is unclear, and output/error behavior is not described, but the most important safety trait is stated.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes important caveats in parentheticals. It is efficient, though 'safety flags' and 'x402' are jargon that could be clearer or omitted.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the input and the key non-verification caveat. However, it does not describe the return structure, invalid-token behavior, or what 'safety flags' means, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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%: the only parameter, 'token', is already described as 'JWT to decode'. The description adds no extra format, constraints, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Decode a JWT header+payload', which clearly states what the tool does. It does not distinguish against sibling tools, and the phrase 'with safety flags' is somewhat ambiguous, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'never verifies the signature' implies this tool should not be used for authentication/verification, which is a useful exclusion. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling decoder is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: catalog lists the paid tools, and the others cover distinct utilities like crypto pricing, email deliverability, hashing, JWT decoding, regex, slugify, UUID generation, and weather. Even the three email-related tools are clearly separated by description: deliverability audit, score, and template.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case noun_noun pattern (crypto_price, domain_age, email_grade), but catalog and weather are bare nouns, slugify is verb-based, and jwt_decode is object+verb. The pattern is readable despite the inconsistency, but not uniform.
Tool Count4/5
Thirteen tools is within the reasonable range for a paid micro-tool marketplace, and each tool has its own niche. The presence of a meta-catalog tool plus 12 discrete utilities makes the count feel slightly like a grab-bag, but still well-scoped for the stated purpose.
Completeness4/5
The advertised surface is a catalog of exactly 12 paid tools, and all 12 utilities are present and functional with free preview routes mentioned. There is no obvious missing operation for a stateless utility collection, though the heterogeneous nature of the tools makes completeness less meaningful than for a focused domain server.