Check how to contact a business website, and whether that contact path actually works.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
The lone tool name 'check_contact_path' is descriptive and follows a clear verb_noun pattern. While consistency cannot be fully assessed with one tool, the name itself is well-formed and predictable.
A single tool is too few for a server advertising business contact finding. The tool covers only one specific action, leaving the server feeling thin and incomplete for its stated domain.
The domain implies finding contact information for businesses, but only one path-checking tool exists. There are no tools for searching businesses, resolving domains, or retrieving contact details independently, creating significant gaps.
Given a business website URL, report how a human is meant to make contact and whether that path is actually reachable. Returns a verdict of 'reachable' or 'inconclusive', the forms found with their resolved handler URLs, and any published phone or email. Never submits anything. Answers 'inconclusive' rather than guessing when a site is client-rendered, bot-protected or parked -- about 64% of real sites cannot be judged from outside, and a confident wrong answer is worse than an honest one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The business website URL, e.g. https://example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds: 'Never submits anything' is a critical safety disclosure, while the explanation of 'inconclusive' on client-rendered/bot-protected/parked sites and the 'about 64%' figure transparently set expectations about reliability. The rationale that a confident wrong answer is worse than an honest one further clarifies decision-making behavior.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers return values, safety, and limitations in logical order. Every sentence earns its place: the 64% statistic and the honest-vs-confident rationale directly support the 'inconclusive' behavior, and nothing is redundant or filler.
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, so the description must define the return contract; it does so explicitly by naming the verdict values and the data included (forms with resolved handler URLs, phone, email). It also covers edge-case behavior and the interpretation of inconclusive results, making it complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the result.
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 single parameter is already fully documented by the schema (description, required, pattern, patternMessage), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'business website URL' mirrors the schema without adding new semantics. It provides no format, syntax, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'report how a human is meant to make contact and whether that path is actually reachable' for a 'business website URL'. It also explicitly enumerates the return components (verdict, forms, handler URLs, phone/email), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. With no sibling tools, differentiation is unnecessary, but the self-contained clarity is excellent.
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 explicit 'use this when' statement, but the description's opening clause makes the use case self-evident: given a business website URL, assess contact reachability. It does not name alternatives (there are none) and includes no exclusions, but it does describe the conditions under which the tool will be inconclusive, which guides expectation-setting about when the tool is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
check_contact_pathClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Check how to contact a business website, and whether that contact path actually works.
Is this business's website still there? Checks apex and www, and DNS separately from HTTP.
Scan a business website and see if AI agents can find it, trust it, and act on it.
Check how well AI agents can discover and understand a public website.
