Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wicked MCP server

Wicked MCP server

by WickedAPI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Hybrid

paywall_update_route

Idempotent

Updates an existing paywall route's price, payout wallet, or upstream URL without redeploying; changes apply live in about 20 seconds.

Instructions

[x402 Paywall] Partial update of a route (e.g. change price or payout wallet); applies live within ~20s (needs PAYWALL_API_KEY).

Use when you want to change a route's price, payout wallet or upstream without a redeploy. Not for creating or deleting routes.

Behavior: writes state upstream (not read-only); needs the credentials or wallet signature noted above where applicable.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "paywall_update_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRoute id from paywall_list_routes.
pathNoRoute path, e.g. "/weather".
assetNoPayment token contract; defaults to USDC on the network.
payToNoYour payout wallet (0x…). Settlement pays here directly; nothing is custodied.
priceNoDecimal USD amount, e.g. "0.01" or "$0.01".
methodNoDefault GET.
networkNoCAIP-2 id: Base mainnet eip155:8453, Base Sepolia eip155:84532.
descriptionNoUp to 200 chars: letters, digits, space . _ -
upstreamUrlNoYour https backend. Omit for the demo confirmation payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds context the annotations do not carry: the ~20s live propagation delay and the PAYWALL_API_KEY credential requirement. It also restates non-read-only behavior, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It stops short of saying what happens to fields omitted from a partial update and what a successful response looks like.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first, then usage, then behavior. Slight waste in 'writes state upstream (not read-only)', which duplicates readOnlyHint=false, and the vague qualifier 'where applicable' on the credentials note.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, credential prerequisites, latency and exclusions. It is nearly sufficient; only the post-update result (and whether unspecified fields are preserved) is left unaddressed.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented in the schema (id, path, price, payTo, network, etc.). The description only echoes 'price or payout wallet' and 'upstream', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Partial update of a route') and immediately scopes it with examples (price, payout wallet). The closing 'Not for creating or deleting routes' distinguishes it from paywall_create_route and paywall_delete_route without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('change a route's price, payout wallet or upstream without a redeploy') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for creating or deleting routes'), which maps directly to the sibling create/delete tools. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools