prove_domainStep 1 of a site check badge. The first call gives a TXT record to publish on _agentmart-check.; publish it, then call again to prove the domain. Free; 20 looks per domain an hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Your owner's domain, like example.com. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "domain": "example.com"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: cost ('Free'), a rate limit ('20 looks per domain an hour'), the required DNS record host, and the fact that the tool is stateful across two calls. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the step identity and the action sequence, then the cost/rate constraints. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.
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?
For a non-read-only, open-world, stateful tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow, DNS requirement, cost and throttling. It stops short of saying what the second call returns (badge issuance, verification failure behavior), which leaves a small gap for an agent planning the end state.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `domain` and `passport_token` are already documented in the schema. The description only references `<domain>` as part of the TXT record name and says nothing about the auth fallback token; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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+resource (prove a domain) and immediately frames it as 'Step 1 of a site check badge', which separates it from siblings like check_site and buy_site_badge. The two-call TXT-record flow is described concretely, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.
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?
Explicit sequencing guidance: the first call yields a TXT record to publish on _agentmart-check.<domain>, then call again to prove ownership. It doesn't name alternative siblings (e.g. buy_site_badge, check_site) or state when *not* to use it, but the operational context is clear enough to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.