Skip to main content
Glama

Concierge Intel

by xyz.conc-exe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

security_scan

security-scan — $0.10 USDC/USDG/USDT x402 (or TCX credits). POST https://conc-exe.xyz/api/concierge-security-scan. 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. Added

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses payment requirements, the PAYMENT-REQUIRED response for unpaid calls, and credit/free-tier options. However, it does not describe side effects, authorization implications, or what happens after a successful scan, and there are no annotations to cover these.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is compact and contains relevant payment and endpoint details, but it is structured as a dense run-on block rather than a clear purpose-first description. The payment details dominate while the core action and output are not front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks information about the expected response, success criteria, or output format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It also omits when to choose this scan over related security tools, leaving the context incomplete for an agent.

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?

All top-level parameters have descriptions, and paymentSignature is explained well. However, the body parameter is only described as the JSON POST body and its nested fields (target, allowlist, authorized) are not semantically explained beyond the default values.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the tool as security-scan and includes a default body with target and allowlist, implying a security scanning action, but it never explicitly states what the tool does or what kind of scan it performs. The purpose is inferable but not clearly declared.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like security_deep_scan, security_headers, or security_readiness. It focuses on payment mechanics rather than selection criteria.

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