AgentResolver
Server Details
Free capability resolver for AI agents with MCP, API, and x402 service discovery.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- waxsway/agentresolver
- GitHub Stars
- 0
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists owned capabilities and prices, the other resolves external services with metadata. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
list_capabilities follows a clear verb_noun pattern, while resolve is a single verb that breaks the pattern slightly. However, both are simple, readable, and appropriately named for their functions.
Two tools is on the thin side, but the server's stated scope is narrow: listing capabilities and resolving services. It feels slightly sparse but not unreasonable for such a focused utility.
The core operations for a resolver—listing owned capabilities and resolving external services—are covered. A dedicated get_capability detail tool or search could be a minor addition, but agents can likely accomplish tasks without it.
Available Tools
2 toolslist_capabilitiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List AgentResolver-owned capabilities and current prices/status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds useful context by stating that prices and current status are included, but it does not explain response shape, pagination, or dynamic-data expectations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, resource, and output scope without wasted words. Every element earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns and aligns with the safety annotations, so no further context is needed for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List AgentResolver-owned capabilities and current prices/status.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'resolve' by its action and scope, and it specifies the information returned.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'resolve' tool. It implies an inventory-listing use case but offers no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolveRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Free universal capability resolver. Searches AgentResolver-owned capabilities, live MCP directories, and x402 marketplace services and returns machine-readable connection, price, and invocation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| goal | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
list_capabilities - First observed
resolve
Related MCP Connectors
Fallback capability resolver for AI agents with replay-verified discovery and x402 paid execution.
Capability registry for the agentic economy. Semantic search over verified MCP server listings.
AI agent registry — search, discover, register, and connect agents via MCP.
AgencyAI's public MCP for service discovery and AI-readiness assessment.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes free-tier AI APIs as MCP tools for AI agents, enabling text generation, web search, embeddings, and vision analysis with automatic failover and capability routing.14MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceMCP server for the x402 protocol that lets AI agents discover and call payment-gated HTTP APIs automatically.82 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP Server for agent and service discovery — register, search, rate, and manage AI agents and services in a local directory.10 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible agents to discover and call x402 paid services from a directory of over 2,000 APIs.Apache 2.0
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.