Skip to main content
Glama
presidio-v

presidio-hardened-x402-mcp

by presidio-v
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a completely distinct purpose: PII screening, spending policy enforcement, and replay protection. The descriptions clearly delineate their roles, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for each pre-payment check.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (screen_payment_metadata, check_payment_policy, check_payment_replay). The verbs 'screen' and 'check' accurately differentiate the actions, and the nouns clearly indicate the target aspect of payment processing.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the essential pre-payment validation steps (privacy, policy, replay) without unnecessary overlap or bloat. This is a well-scoped set that fully serves the server's stated purpose.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface provides a complete set of checks needed before submitting an x402 payment: PII redaction, spending limit verification, and replay detection. There are no obvious gaps for the declared pre-payment domain.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 38 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.

  • 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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavioral details: it records spend against rolling time-window ledgers and warns that calling without paying inflates the spend window. It also mentions configuration via env vars, leaving no ambiguity about side effects.

    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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a prominent warning, configuration notes, and a parameter/return section. It is efficient but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed, but quality is high.

    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 the tool's simplicity (two scalar params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (return format described), the description covers purpose, side effects, usage, parameters, and returns comprehensively. No critical information is missing.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: resource_url is 'x402 resource URL being paid (used for per-endpoint limits)' and amount_usd is 'Payment amount in USD-equivalent.' This clarifies usage beyond the parameter names, though format constraints or examples are missing.

    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's purpose: 'Check whether a payment is allowed by the configured spending policy.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('payment policy'), and distinguishes from siblings (screen_payment_metadata, check_payment_replay) by its focus on spending limits and side effects.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call exactly once, immediately before submitting the payment.' It warns against calling without paying to avoid inflating the spend window. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description fully discloses no side effects, modes, error handling, and return schemas for both success and remote failure. Very thorough and transparent.

    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?

    Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, modes, args, and returns. Each sentence adds value, no fluff.

    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 aspects: inputs (4 params), outputs (success and error), behavioral modes, and error handling. Complete given complexity and presence of output schema.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter info: constraints (max lengths), optional entities whitelist, and default values. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

    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?

    Clearly states the tool screens x402 payment metadata for PII before signing. The verb 'screen' and resource are specific, but no explicit contrast with sibling tools check_payment_policy and check_payment_replay.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Explicitly says 'Call BEFORE sending the payment request.' Describes two modes and how to handle remote failure, providing clear context for use. No alternatives mentioned, but usage is well-defined.

    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 that it records a fingerprint (side effect), requires environment variables for cross-process operation, and describes the return format. No annotations are present, but the description fully covers safety and 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?

    Concise, well-structured with a title statement, warning, and list of args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

    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 side effects, prerequisites (env vars), usage order, and return values. For a tool with 5 required params and no annotations, the description is fully complete.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but meaningful explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Amount as string (preserves precision)'), adding clarity beyond the schema's bare names and types.

    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 checks for replay of a payment using a fingerprint. The verb 'check' and resource 'payment replay' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like screen_payment_metadata or check_payment_policy, though the distinct behavior is implied.

    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: 'Call exactly once, immediately before submitting the payment.' Also explains cross-process detection dependencies, helping the agent understand when and how to use the tool.

    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

presidio-hardened-x402-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

presidio-hardened-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/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-x402-mcp'

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