Skip to main content
Glama

TOLLA Network

Is this host in the index?

lane_report_host
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free check of one host against the public x402 Bazaar index: its listings with price, networks, paying wallets and calls over 30 days. Pass a host (api.example.com) or a full URL.

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "lane_report_host"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesHost or URL, e.g. api.example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the data source (public x402 Bazaar index), the cost profile ('Free', implying no auth/quota), and the 30-day measurement window for calls — meaningful context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and return contents first, input format second. Nothing is wasted, though the input-format clause duplicates the schema description and could have been dropped.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so concretely (listings, price, networks, paying wallets, 30-day calls). For a one-parameter, fully-annotated read tool this is complete.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Host or URL, e.g. api.example.com'. The description's 'Pass a host (api.example.com) or a full URL' restates that schema text almost verbatim, adding essentially no new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: a read-only check of one host against the public x402 Bazaar index, with the returned fields enumerated. The 'one host' framing implicitly separates it from catalog-wide siblings like search_lanes or x402_market_scan, though no sibling is named.

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?

'Free check' signals there is no cost barrier, which implies 'just call it', and the tool's narrow scope (one host) makes its applicability fairly obvious. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling statement and no stated prerequisites or failure conditions.

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.

Resources