Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ DependencyPulse Project Audit (0.025 USDC)

deps_audit_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a project in one call: send package-lock.json (v2/v3), package.json, composer.lock, composer.json or requirements.txt. Lockfiles give exact direct and transitive versions; manifest ranges are resolved to the highest satisfying version and labelled so; unpinned requirements are listed as unresolved. Returns every affected package with advisories, severity, fixed versions and the smallest fixing upgrade, plus coverage limits. Up to 300 packages per audit. Price: 0.025 USDC per call, paid with x402 (USDC on Base or Solana, no account, no API key); invalid input is refused before payment and a failed run is never charged. Without a payment the tool returns the x402 PaymentRequired. How to call it: get_example {"tool":"deps_audit_project"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/deps/audit?manifest=%7B%22dependencies%22%3A%7B%22express%22%3A%22%5E4.17.0%22%2C%22lodash%22%3A%224.17.15%22%2C%22minimist%22%3A%221.2.5%22%7D%7D

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": {
      "manifest": "<manifest>"
    },
    "name": "deps_audit_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
devNo1 to include dev dependencies (default 0)
kindNooptional file type: package-lock, package, composer-lock, composer, requirements (auto-detected)
manifestYesfile content (required): package-lock.json, package.json, composer.lock, composer.json or requirements.txt; POST JSON body recommended

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / manifest / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "{\"dependencies\":{\"express\":\"^4.17.0\",\"lodash\":\"4.17.15\",\"minimist\":\"1.2.5\"}}"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: 0.025 USDC pricing via x402, no account or API key, invalid input refused before payment, failed runs never charged, and a PaymentRequired response when unpaid. Coverage limits and the 300-package cap are also disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and accepted inputs, and most sentences carry real information (pricing, resolution semantics, limits). The trailing URL-encoded HTTP example is bulky and partially duplicates the get_example pointer, slightly diluting the otherwise tight structure.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return shape (affected packages, advisories, severity, fixed versions, smallest fixing upgrade, coverage limits) and the payment/error path. For a paid, stateless audit tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 manifest, kind and dev; that sets the baseline at 3. The description does add interpretive meaning for the manifest parameter (how each file type is parsed and labelled), but says nothing about the dev or kind parameters beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Audit a project in one call') and immediately enumerates the exact accepted inputs (package-lock.json v2/v3, package.json, composer.lock, composer.json, requirements.txt). The 'in one call' framing plus the 300-package scope implicitly separates it from the per-package siblings like deps_check_advisories, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear selection context by explaining the semantic difference between input types: lockfiles yield exact direct and transitive versions, manifests get ranges resolved to the highest satisfying version, unpinned requirements become unresolved. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling to use instead (e.g. deps_check_advisories for a single package) or state when not to use it.

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

All YRUZ x402 tools toolsInspect
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.

Resources