Skip to main content
Glama

FabTally Guard

by io.github.zvmzaretsky

Public url -> clean Markdown + token count (paid $0.004)

url_read

PAID $0.004 (x402, USDC on Base). Fetch a PUBLIC url and return clean Markdown + a token estimate for RAG ingestion — readability extraction, boilerplate stripped. Respects robots.txt, public pages only, no login/paywall bypass, nothing stored. Args: url. Without payment returns the x402 challenge; pass x_payment to settle.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe public web page URL to fetch and convert to Markdown.
x_paymentNox402 payment payload (base64) for this PAID check. If supplied it is forwarded as the X-PAYMENT header to settle the call and return the real result instead of a 402 challenge. Omit to get the price challenge first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the payment cost and mechanism, robots.txt compliance, public-only constraint, no login/paywall bypass, nothing stored, and the 402 challenge flow. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 information-dense but not overly long. It front-loads the critical paid warning and packs multiple behavioral constraints into a few sentences. Slight redundancy ('Args: url') could be removed, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (paid, x402, two params, no output schema), but the description covers the payment challenge flow, content return (Markdown + token estimate), restrictions, and privacy. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'Args: url' but does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The x_payment behavior is described, but the schema also explains it.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch a PUBLIC url and return clean Markdown + a token estimate.' It clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like deps_check and json_repair by focusing on URL-to-Markdown conversion.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'for RAG ingestion' and explicitly restricts to 'public pages only, no login/paywall bypass.' It also explains the payment flow, which is a key usage prerequisite, though it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools.

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

All FabTally Guard toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct function: package vetting, JSON repair, URL fetching, and x402 endpoint verification. There is no overlap in intent or output, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case object_action pattern (deps_check, json_repair, url_read, x402_preflight). This maintains uniformity and predictability across the set.

Tool Count5/5

With exactly four tools, the server is well-scoped and every tool earns its place. There is no bloat or trivial filler, and the count falls squarely within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

Each tool is functionally complete for its individual purpose, but the set lacks batch operations or a way to manage/retrieve prior checks. These are minor gaps that agents can work around with scripting or external state.

Resources