Skip to main content
Glama
x402-index

x402search

by x402-index
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap with other tools. The tool has a single, clearly defined purpose: searching x402-enabled APIs. Agents cannot misselect between tools as there is only one option.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool name 'search_x402_apis' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which would be consistent if more tools were added.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server focused on API discovery, as it severely limits functionality. While the tool covers search, there are obvious gaps like filtering, sorting, or accessing detailed API information, making the server feel thin and incomplete for its domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for API discovery. It only provides search functionality, missing essential operations such as retrieving detailed API metadata, filtering results, or managing saved searches. This will cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive API exploration tasks.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • 1 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool performs searches (not mutations), costs $0.01 USDC per search on Base mainnet, and returns ranked results with specific metadata. It could improve by mentioning response format or error handling.

    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?

    The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance, and the third discloses cost information. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

    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 annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, cost, and result format well, but could benefit from mentioning response structure or error cases to be fully comprehensive for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

    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 searches through 13,000+ x402-enabled HTTP APIs using specific criteria (capability, category, network, keyword) and returns ranked results with endpoint URLs, pricing, and payment metadata. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'x402-enabled HTTP APIs' with no siblings to differentiate from.

    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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to discover paid APIs for any capability your agent needs.' It does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but with no sibling tools, this guidance is sufficient for the given context.

    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

x402search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

x402search-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/x402-index/x402search-mcp'

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