Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x402station-mcp

x402station-mcp

by sF1nX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

7-day forensics report

forensics

Analyze an x402 endpoint with 7-day hourly uptime, latency percentiles, status-code distribution, namespace concentration, and decoy probability score. Fee: $0.001 USDC.

Instructions

Deep history for one x402 endpoint: hourly uptime over 7 days, latency p50/p90/p99, status-code distribution, concentration-group stats (how crowded this provider's namespace is), and a decoy probability score [0, 1]. Costs $0.001 USDC. Superset of preflight — if you're running forensics you don't need preflight too.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "forensics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full URL of the x402 endpoint to analyse.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.10

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses cost ($0.001 USDC) and the scope of data (7-day history). It does not mention potential failure cases or permissions, but overall 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?

Two concise sentences front-load all critical information: data provided, cost, and relationship to sibling tool. 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return data (list of metrics). Could mention pagination or error handling, but the depth is sufficient for a paid tool.

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 already covers the single parameter with a clear description. The description adds that the URL must be for an x402 endpoint, but this is minor beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'deep history for one x402 endpoint' and lists specific metrics (uptime, latency, status-code distribution, etc.), differentiating from siblings like preflight by explicitly stating it's a superset.

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: 'superset of preflight — if you're running forensics you don't need preflight too.' Also mentions cost, helping agents decide when to invoke.

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