Skip to main content
Glama
CodaLabs-xyz

X402 MCP Template

by CodaLabs-xyz
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: example_api_call is for making API calls, health_check is for service availability, and service_info is for retrieving service metadata. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool for each task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures: example_api_call, health_check, and service_info. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, making the tool set easy to navigate and understand.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only three tools, the set feels thin for a server labeled as an 'MCP Template' that might imply broader functionality. While the tools cover basic API interaction, health, and info needs, the count is borderline low for a template that could be expanded, suggesting it might be under-scoped for more complex use cases.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools provide foundational coverage for API calls, health checks, and service information, but there are notable gaps. For a template server, missing operations like authentication, error handling, or specific endpoint management could limit agent workflows, indicating an incomplete surface for robust API integration.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'X402-protected' which suggests some authentication/authorization requirement, but doesn't explain what this protection entails, whether there are rate limits, error behaviors, or what the tool actually does beyond making calls. The template nature ('Replace with your actual API endpoints') further obscures actual behavior.

    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 brief (two sentences) and gets straight to the point about being an example tool for API calls. However, the second sentence 'Replace with your actual API endpoints' adds confusion rather than clarity, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall it's appropriately sized for what it attempts to convey.

    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?

    For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'X402-protected' means operationally, or provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use it effectively. The template disclaimer undermines completeness for actual usage.

    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 fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

    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 states 'Example tool for making X402-protected API calls' which provides a vague purpose (making API calls with some protection), but it's generic and doesn't specify what resource or action it performs. The phrase 'Replace with your actual API endpoints' indicates this is a template rather than a functional tool, which creates ambiguity about its actual purpose.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the sibling tools (health_check, service_info). The description only mentions it's for 'X402-protected API calls' without explaining what that means or when this protection is needed. There's no comparison to alternatives or context for selection.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 states the tool checks availability and responsiveness, but doesn't describe what 'available' or 'responding' means (e.g., HTTP status codes, timeouts, error handling), or any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for an API health check tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information while focusing on the tool's purpose.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('X402 API service'), specifying availability and responsiveness. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'example_api_call' or 'service_info', which might offer overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 alternatives like 'example_api_call' or 'service_info', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for checking service status but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 implies a read-only operation ('Get information'), which is straightforward, but doesn't add details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description is adequate for a simple info tool but lacks richer behavioral context.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and specifies the types of information retrieved. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it could be more comprehensive by addressing usage relative to siblings or providing more behavioral details, which would enhance contextual completeness for an agent.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant parameter information and focuses on the tool's purpose.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('X402 API service'), including what information is retrieved (endpoints, pricing, payment requirements). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'example_api_call' or 'health_check', which might also provide service-related information.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 alternatives like 'example_api_call' or 'health_check'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios based solely on the purpose statement.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Template-x402-Mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Template-x402-Mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CodaLabs-xyz/Template-x402-Mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server