Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

create_free_key

Self-serve free tier — the rung between anonymous access and paid blocks. One email in, one API key out, shown exactly once.

Use this tool when:

  • You are calling anonymously and hitting the anonymous rate limit.

  • You want your calls identified so usage survives IP changes.

Limits:

  • 50 requests/day (same endpoints as anonymous, higher ceiling).

  • One active free key per email; 3 signups per IP per day.

  • The raw key is returned once and stored only as a SHA-256 hash — it cannot be recovered, only revoked and reissued.

Cost: free. No card, no account — the email is the revocation handle, nothing more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key is shown once, stored as SHA-256 hash (unrecoverable), limits (50/day, 1 per email, 3 per IP), and cost (free). No annotations exist, so description fully carries behavioral disclosure.

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 and well-structured: overview, usage guidance, limits, and key recovery note. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers input, behavior, limits, and implications, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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?

Although the schema defines email with format and example, the description adds context ('One email in') and confirms the email is the revocation handle, adding meaning beyond the schema definition.

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 creates a free API key, distinguishing it from siblings like get_api_key (retrieve) and revoke_api_key (invalidate). It positions the tool as the step between anonymous and paid access.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: when hitting anonymous rate limits or wanting persistent usage tracking. Implicitly suggests not to use if already have a key or need paid tier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TunnelMind Data API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources