x402-triage-mcp
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@x402-triage-mcptriage x402 surface on https://api.example.com/.well-known/x402"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
x402-triage-mcp
MCP server for no-payment x402 surface triage, 402 Index health checks, and paid review handoff.
It exposes three MCP tools:
triage_x402_surfacechecks one public x402, MPP, Pay.sh, OpenAPI, manifest, or HTTP 402 endpoint through the Tate Programs public triage API.watch_402_indexsearches public 402 Index metadata for provider health, payment-validity, and domain-verification signals.x402_paid_pathsreturns the paid x402 API endpoints, service catalog, AgentCard, and fixed-scope review links.
The tools do not send X-PAYMENT, wallet signatures, API keys, private credentials, or paid calls.
Tool page: https://tateprograms.com/x402-surface-check.html
Paid x402 API catalog: https://tateprograms.com/services.json
AgentCard: https://the402.tateprograms.com/.well-known/agent-card.json
Install
Run directly with npx:
npx --yes x402-triage-mcpRelated MCP server: PreFlight
MCP Config
Add this server to an MCP client that supports stdio servers:
{
"mcpServers": {
"x402-triage": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["--yes", "--package", "x402-triage-mcp", "x402-triage-mcp"]
}
}
}STDIO MCP client config launches a local command. Review the command, args, and any env values before running generated configs, and pin versions when repeatability matters.
Tools
triage_x402_surface
{
"url": "https://api.example.com/.well-known/x402",
"method": "GET",
"origin": "https://app.example.com"
}Returns status, payment headers, parsed challenge summary, attack-class checks, findings, and paid handoff paths.
watch_402_index
{
"q": "example.com",
"protocol": "x402",
"limit": 10
}Returns matching public 402 Index records, health summary, visible launch blockers, and paid handoff paths.
x402_paid_paths
Returns:
https://the402.tateprograms.com/api/x402/triagehttps://the402.tateprograms.com/api/x402/index-watchhttps://tateprograms.com/services.jsonhttps://tateprograms.com/x402-five-attack-review.htmlhttps://tateprograms.com/x402-fix-sprint.html
Payment And Safety Boundary
Use this server only on public launch surfaces that you own or are authorized to inspect. Do not submit private URLs, tokenized URLs, customer data, wallet seed phrases, or production secrets.
This MCP server is read-only. It does not initiate payments, send X-PAYMENT headers, sign wallet messages, call paid endpoints, create invoices, settle balances, or grant purchasing authority. The only paid paths it returns are static Tate Programs handoff URLs for teams that choose to buy a separate review.
For agent-commerce reviews, the server reports whether the target surface exposes the safety controls buyers expect before real spend is enabled:
Spend limits: per-call and total budget caps should be explicit before an agent can pay.
Approval checkpoints: payment setup and high-risk spend should require a visible user or policy approval step.
Recipient validation: paid requests should be constrained to expected domains, merchants, wallet addresses, or signed registry entries.
Replay protection: challenges and settlement callbacks should use nonces, expirations, idempotency keys, signed resources, or equivalent controls.
Metadata minimization: payment metadata should avoid private user context, secrets, and unnecessary resource detail.
Receipts and audit trails: successful payments should produce transaction IDs, recipient, amount, reason, and policy evidence.
Development
npm install
npm run checkAvailable Tools
3 toolstriage_x402_surfaceTriage x402 payment surfaceARead-onlyIdempotent
Run a no-payment external pass against one public x402, MPP, Pay.sh, OpenAPI, manifest, or HTTP 402 endpoint. The tool calls the Tate Programs public triage API and returns status, payment headers, parsed challenge shape, attack-class checks, cache/CORS notes, and paid review handoff. It does not send X-PAYMENT, wallet signatures, API keys, private tokens, or paid calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTPS manifest, OpenAPI file, paid endpoint, or discovery URL to review. | |
| method | No | No-payment probe method. Use POST only for endpoints that intentionally expose a public paid POST route. | GET |
| origin | No | Optional browser Origin for CORS/payment-header readability checks. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds explicit guarantees that no X-PAYMENT, wallet signatures, API keys, private tokens, or paid calls are sent, plus lists return content. No contradiction.
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: first states the core action, second lists outputs and exclusions. No redundant text, well front-loaded.
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?
Given the read-only, open-world nature and absence of output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what it deliberately avoids sending. No critical gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Run a no-payment external pass') and lists concrete resource types (x402, MPP, Pay.sh, OpenAPI, manifest, HTTP 402 endpoint). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'no-payment' and 'triage' versus watching or paid paths.
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?
Provides clear context for use: a single public endpoint, no payment, external triage pass. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclude cases, but the scope is well defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
watch_402_indexWatch 402 Index listingsARead-onlyIdempotent
Look up public 402 Index service records by provider, domain, endpoint URL, or search term. Use this before listing, outreach, launch review, or re-check work to spot down services, invalid payment requirements, and unverified domains. This is public metadata only and does not send payment headers or paid calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | 402 Index search term, provider name, domain, service URL, or endpoint URL. | |
| limit | No | Maximum records to return. | |
| health | No | Optional health filter. | |
| protocol | No | Protocol filter. | x402 |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly stating "does not send payment headers or paid calls," which clarifies financial side effects not covered by the hints alone. It also describes the kind of insights the lookup provides (spot down services, etc.), but does not elaborate on pagination or response format, keeping it just below a perfect score.
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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and a safety clarification. It is fully front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No redundant or filler words.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description explains the practical utility (spot down services, invalid payment requirements, unverified domains). It covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and safety. Missing details like pagination or return counts are not explicitly stated, but the simplicity of the tool and the rich schema/annotations make this adequate with only minor gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions provider, domain, endpoint URL, and search term, but this effectively mirrors the q parameter's schema description ('402 Index search term, provider name, domain, service URL, or endpoint URL'). No additional parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Look up public 402 Index service records by provider, domain, endpoint URL, or search term." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it handles public metadata and does not send payment headers or paid calls, contrasting with x402_paid_paths.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: "Use this before listing, outreach, launch review, or re-check work" and explains what it can reveal (down services, invalid payment requirements, unverified domains). It also includes an exclusion: "This is public metadata only and does not send payment headers or paid calls," guiding when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x402_paid_pathsReturn x402 paid API pathsARead-onlyIdempotent
Return the Tate Programs paid x402 API endpoints, service catalog, AgentCard, and fixed-scope review handoff URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description only needs to add context. It does so by specifying the content of the return (endpoints, service catalog, AgentCard, handoff URLs), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.
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 a single sentence that is directly to the point, listing all the components returned. No filler or redundant information, 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple no-parameter read-only tool. The description covers the key return items, which is sufficient given the lack of output schema. It does not explain return format, but the listed items give a clear picture of what to expect.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior.
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 the verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'Tate Programs paid x402 API endpoints, service catalog, AgentCard, and fixed-scope review handoff URLs.' It is specific about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'triage_x402_surface' or 'watch_402_index.' The description simply states what it returns without contextualizing its appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.1.1- First observed
triage_x402_surface - First observed
watch_402_index - First observed
x402_paid_paths
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct function: triaging a live endpoint, looking up public index metadata, and retrieving paid service paths. There is no overlap in purpose or output.
The naming convention is inconsistent: triage_x402_surface and watch_402_index follow a verb_noun pattern, but x402_paid_paths is a noun phrase. Additionally, the use of 'x402' vs '402' varies across tool names.
Three tools is well-scoped for a specialized triage service, covering the core actions without redundancy. Each tool earns its place in the set.
The set covers the main workflows: triage, index lookup, and paid path discovery. Minor gaps exist such as not offering a way to update index records, but these are likely external concerns.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Pay for APIs with USDC. Read-only x402 payment discovery, verification, evidence, and status.
Paid x402 tools for merchant intelligence, Base payment readiness, and verifiable web evidence.
Authorize x402 payments before signing with request-bound, signed safety decisions.
Analyzes delegated AI payment authority and exposes supported Stripe/x402 evidence contracts.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to use paid tools for secret scanning, agent-config auditing, and OG image rendering, with payments handled over the x402 protocol on Base.MIT- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables agents to discover and verify paid agent services through x402 payment validation and release gate checks.-
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP-capable agents to search the curated gold-402 directory of x402 services, probe any endpoint for valid 402 payment terms, and optionally purchase a human editorial verdict for a resource.5-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables per-request paid AI analysis of public URLs, condition verification, and AI consultation via x402 micropayments on Base, with no account or subscription.13-
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/TateLyman/x402-triage-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server