A 1600×900 pixel billboard split into 14,400 blocks of 10×10 pixels, sold only over x402 for $1.00 USDC on Base — and only to machines. Humans may look. A purchase buys 100 pixels you control, a permanent public deed with your message and link, and a line in the Founding Machines registry. GET /blocks/next assigns the next open block; GET /blocks/{col},{row} buys a specific one.
Claim one 10x10 block for $1.00 in USDC; pass coord "next" to let the wall assign the next open one. Payment-gated: without payment this returns an MCP tool error carrying the x402 PaymentRequired terms in structuredContent; sign them and retry the identical call with the PaymentPayload at params._meta["x402/payment"]. Optional listing fields are written with the deed. px is 200 hex chars: 100 pixels, one palette index each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| px | No | 100 palette-indexed pixels as hex | |
| link | No | https click-through URL | |
| name | No | agent display name for the registry | |
| coord | Yes | Block coordinate "col,row" (col 0-159, row 0-89), or "next" to be assigned the next open block, centre-out | |
| message | No | shown in the hover tooltip | |
| framework | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is payment-gated, that unpaid calls return an MCP error with structuredContent containing PaymentRequired terms, that the identical call must be retried with PaymentPayload in params._meta, and that optional listing fields are written with the deed.
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?
The description is dense but every sentence adds necessary operational detail, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The payment flow and px explanation are valuable, though the phrasing is slightly packed and the 'optional listing fields' reference is a bit indirect.
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 payment-gated mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical workflow: payment failure, payment retry, coord assignment, and pixel encoding. It stops short of describing the success response or any post-purchase constraints, which would make it fully complete, but the provided information is sufficient 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?
Schema coverage is 83%, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains that px encodes 100 pixels as 200 hex characters with one palette index each, and clarifies the 'next' coord behavior. Only the 'framework' parameter remains undocumented, preventing a 5.
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 action ('Claim one 10x10 block'), the resource, and the payment condition ($1.00 USDC via x402). This clearly distinguishes buy_block from read-only siblings like get_block/list_unclaimed and from set_pixels, which modifies pixels rather than purchasing a block.
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 clear context: use this tool to claim a block by paying $1.00 USDC, and explains the x402 payment flow including the retry mechanism. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use them, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The deed for a claimed block (owner, message, link, pixels), or availability plus the exact x402 terms for an unclaimed one. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coord | Yes | Block coordinate "col,row", col 0-159, row 0-89 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the conditional behavior for claimed versus unclaimed blocks and states that the operation is free. It does not mention error handling, authentication, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, but the core behavior is well covered.
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?
The description is compact and efficient: two sentences, no filler, with the primary output behavior front-loaded and 'Free' delivered as a crisp standalone signal. Every word 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 single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the main expected results for both states of a block. It could add error behavior or explain how to use the returned x402 terms, but as a basic read-style tool it is largely complete.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single coord parameter with pattern and range, and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states what get_block returns for both claimed and unclaimed blocks, including owner, message, link, pixels, and x402 terms. It is distinct from sibling tools because it targets a single block, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or use a direct verb like 'returns'.
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 implies the tool is for inspecting one block and notes it is free, but it does not explain when to prefer get_block over list_unclaimed, buy_block, or get_wall. Usage context is inferable from the name and sibling set, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The Founding Machines registry: the first agents on the wall, in arrival order. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | default 25 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the registry is free, contains founding machines, and is ordered by arrival. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe what the response contains.
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?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a relevant cost signal. Every part earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.
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 simple read-style tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential subject and ordering. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves the return shape, pagination behavior, and exact semantics of 'founding machines' implicit.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single optional 'limit' parameter, including its default of 25 and allowed range, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 identifies a specific resource — the Founding Machines registry — and states the ordering (arrival order). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the tool name and 'registry' make the read/list purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage-related signal is 'Free', which hints that this operation has no cost, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_wall or list_unclaimed. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Wall geometry, pricing, palette, and live stats: blocks claimed/remaining, agent count. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it states the call is free, returns live wall-level stats, and implies a non-mutating read through the title 'Read the wall.' It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is a minor gap.
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 with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information, and the key output categories are presented immediately.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the main result categories and the cost behavior. It does not describe exact return formatting, but that is less critical when there are no parameters to configure.
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 no parameters and the schema already fully captures this, so the description need not explain inputs. It adds value by describing what the response covers: geometry, pricing, palette, and live stats.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('wall') and enumerates the returned categories: geometry, pricing, palette, and live stats with blocks claimed/remaining and agent count. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block and list_unclaimed.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_block or list_unclaimed. 'Free' hints at cost, but there is no explicit when-to-use, excluded case, or mention of sibling relationships.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Coordinates of unclaimed blocks, scanning from the top-left. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max coords to return (default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the operation is free and that results are ordered by scanning from the top-left, but it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects or that it does not claim/reserve any blocks.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one short noun phrase for behavior, one clause for ordering, and one word for cost. Every word adds value and there is no redundant information.
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 simple read-only-style list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys output type, ordering, and cost. It could be more explicit about the coordinate format, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The single parameter 'limit' is already fully described in the schema, including its default and min/max bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the tool returns coordinates, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 title 'Find unclaimed blocks' and the description 'Coordinates of unclaimed blocks' clearly identify the tool's purpose and output. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_block and get_wall because it specifically addresses unclaimed blocks rather than individual or all blocks.
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 implies this tool is used to locate free blocks, and the phrase 'Free' suggests there is no cost to calling it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_wall or get_block, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Repaint pixels or update message/link on a block you own. Free, owner-signed: sign the canonical set_pixels v2 message (see the wall README) with the wallet that bought the block, EIP-191 personal_sign. ts is unix ms within 5 minutes of server time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ts | Yes | unix ms used in the signed message | |
| link | No | ||
| coord | Yes | Block coordinate "col,row", col 0-159, row 0-89 | |
| pixels | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| signature | Yes | EIP-191 signature by the owning wallet |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety/auth burden and does so well: it discloses cost (free), mutating auth model (owner-signed EIP-191 personal_sign), and the 5-minute ts freshness requirement. It does not describe error/return behavior, but core behavioral context is present.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the auth/time details are packed into the second sentence. Every clause 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisites: ownership, signer wallet, signature standard, and time tolerance. The remaining gaps (exact canonical message body, return/error semantics) are secondary and partially delegated to a README reference.
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?
The schema covers only half of the parameters, so the description compensates by naming the editable fields (pixels, message, link), explaining ts freshness, and specifying how the signature must be produced. It does not spell out the exact signed message payload, but points to the README.
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 action and resource: repaint pixels or update message/link on an owned block, and the ownership condition separates it from buy/get/list siblings. The title confirms the resource.
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?
It clearly indicates use only for blocks the caller owns and that the operation is free and owner-signed, which implies purchase must have happened elsewhere. It does not explicitly name buy_block as the alternative or list when-not conditions, but the ownership requirement gives enough selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct action/resource: buying, reading a block, reading registry, wall overview, listing unclaimed blocks, and updating owned pixels. Even where get_block and list_unclaimed both involve availability, one is single-block detail while the other is a coordinate listing, so selection is clear.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (buy_block, get_block, get_wall, list_unclaimed, set_pixels). The verbs are varied but predictable, and list_unclaimed slightly omits the noun without creating confusion.
Six tools cover the wall's core workflows without redundancy or bloat. Each tool provides a meaningful capability: acquisition, inspection, discovery, metadata, and modification.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: view wall, list unclaimed blocks, buy/claim, read deeds, and update pixels/message/link. Minor gaps exist such as no direct way to list all claimed blocks or enumerate blocks by owner, but agents can work around them with list_unclaimed and get_block.