Skip to main content
Glama

Concierge Intel

by xyz.conc-exe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

security_readiness

security-readiness — $0.02 USDC/USDG/USDT x402 (or TCX credits). POST https://conc-exe.xyz/api/concierge-security-readiness. Default body: {"target":"https://api.example.com","allowlist":["*.example.com"],"authorized":true}. Unpaid calls return live PAYMENT-REQUIRED accepts (Solana/Base/Arbitrum USDC · Robinhood USDG · BNB USDT/USDC Permit2).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON POST body for the intel/security route
agentIdNoOptional Concierge agent id (agt_…)
creditsWalletNoSolana wallet for TCX prepaid credits (x-tcx-credits-wallet)
paymentSignatureNoBase64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE after x402 settlement. Omit to receive a structured payment challenge (or settle via creditsWallet / SOON holder headers).
soonHolderWalletNoSolana wallet for SOON/TCX holder free tier (X-Soon-Holder-Wallet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Concierge agent id (agt_…)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"JSON POST body"New value: +"JSON POST body for the intel/security route"
    • addedInput schema / properties / creditsWallet
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Solana wallet for TCX prepaid credits (x-tcx-credits-wallet)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / paymentSignature / description
      Previous value: -"Base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header after x402 settlement"New value: +"Base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE after x402 settlement. Omit to receive a structured payment challenge (or settle via creditsWallet / SOON holder headers)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / soonHolderWallet
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Solana wallet for SOON/TCX holder free tier (X-Soon-Holder-Wallet)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions payment-related behavior (unpaid calls return PAYMENT-REQUIRED accepts) but does not describe what a successful call does, what it returns, or any side effects. The core behavior of the tool is absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but poorly structured. It leads with cost and endpoint rather than the tool's purpose, burying the only functional hint (the default body) in the middle. Not front-loaded, and the payment details dominate.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks a statement of what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. An agent cannot correctly invoke it without guessing the purpose and outcome.

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 each parameter. The description adds the default body example and payment context, but these do not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description provides an endpoint and default body but never explicitly states what the tool does. It mentions 'security-readiness' and 'intel/security route' in the schema, but the core purpose (e.g., evaluating security readiness of a target) is only implied. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling security tools like security_scan or security_headers.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide if this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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

All Concierge Intel 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