Skip to main content
Glama
ShinyDapps

l402-kit-mcp

by ShinyDapps
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.8.6

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking remaining budget, fetching with optional payment, viewing the budget cap, and obtaining a spending audit. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the consistent 'l402_' prefix and use snake_case, but the naming pattern varies between noun (balance, spending_report) and verb (fetch, set_budget). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: managing an L402 payment session. Each tool is essential and none are extraneous.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers all core operations for an L402 session: checking budget, fetching with automatic payment, viewing the budget cap, and auditing spending. There are no obvious gaps.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    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
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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.

  • View related servers

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that it's read-only, cannot set budget, and details the source env var BUDGET_SATS and immutability during runtime. This adds valuable context beyond annotations.

    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?

    Description is four sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, when-to-use, limitation, and sibling reference. No wasted words.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given no parameters, clear annotations, and explicit description of what it returns and limitations, the tool is well-described for an agent. Lacks output format but it's a simple read-only query; still complete enough.

    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?

    Input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool 'returns the session budget cap configured at startup', uses specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'session budget cap'. It distinguishes from sibling l402_balance which tracks remaining balance.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly says when to use: 'useful at the start of a session before making any API calls'. It also says what not to use for: 'CANNOT set or change the budget', and provides alternative (restart server). Distinguishes from l402_balance for remaining balance.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that it doesn't trigger payment or side effects, and explains budget is set at startup via BUDGET_SATS (default 1000 sats). Adds useful context beyond annotations.

    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?

    Three sentences: first states main function, second gives usage guidance, third provides return format and budget details. No wasted words, front-loaded.

    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?

    No output schema but description explicitly shows return format. Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and budget configuration. Complete for a simple, param-less 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?

    Input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so description doesn't need to add param info. Baseline 4 for 0 params; description is adequate.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states it returns the remaining Lightning budget for the MCP session, specifying the verb 'returns' and resource 'remaining Bitcoin Lightning budget'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning usage before l402_fetch.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly says 'Use this before calling l402_fetch to confirm you have enough sats — avoids wasted attempts when budget is exhausted.' Also notes it's read-only with no side effects.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Discloses side effects (deducts sats), detailed flow (request, 402 handling, payment, retry), and failure modes (budget exhaustion, unreachable, payment failure). Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so description fully covers behavioral traits.

    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?

    Front-loaded with key side effect, concise sentences, well-organized flow and exclusions. No redundant information.

    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?

    Covers all necessary context: purpose, side effect, prerequisite checks, step-by-step flow, error conditions, and exclusions. Without an output schema, it states the return type ('response body as text'). Complete for an AI 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?

    Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail; it focuses on overall behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool fetches an L402-protected URL with payment side effects. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning l402_balance and explicitly says not to use for non-L402 URLs, advising a standard fetch tool instead.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Provides explicit guidance: check l402_balance first if budget limited, do not use if balance is 0, and use standard fetch for regular URLs. Describes the flow and failure conditions.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true; description reinforces no side effects and adds details about return format for no payments.

    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?

    Single, well-structured sentence with bullet-like details; front-loaded with purpose.

    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?

    Given zero parameters and no output schema, description fully explains what it returns, when to use, and read-only nature.

    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?

    No parameters in schema; baseline 4 per rules. Description adds no parameter info needed.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool returns a full audit of Lightning payments, listing specific fields and distinguishing it from sibling l402_balance.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly tells when to use this tool instead of l402_balance ('when you need to know which APIs were called and how much each cost'), and declares it read-only.

    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

l402-kit MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

l402-kit 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/ShinyDapps/l402-kit'

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