Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

create_subscription

Subscribe to a node (ip, domain, asn, or entity slug). On a recurring sweep (~20 min) TunnelMind re-runs the fused POST /v1/verify verdict and, when the material result changes — the verdict label flips, the trust score crosses a band, or the signal set changes — POSTs a signed event to your callback_url.

Webhook authenticity: every delivery carries an X-TunnelMind-Signature: sha256=<hex> header, an HMAC-SHA256 over the raw request body keyed by the signing_key returned ONCE at creation. Recompute and compare to trust it.

Delivery body: { subscription_id, node, event: "verdict_change", previous, current, delivered_ms } where previous/current are compact verdict summaries { verdict, trust_score, signals }.

Inputs (JSON body):

  • node (required): the node to watch.

  • callback_url (required): an https URL to receive deliveries.

  • events (optional): reserved; defaults to ["verdict_change"].

Requires an API key. The baseline verdict is captured at creation, so the first webhook fires on the first genuine change, not the initial state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
eventsNo
callback_urlYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the ~20 minute sweep interval, trigger conditions (verdict label flips, trust score crosses a band, signal set changes), the signature header scheme, the one-time return of the signing key, delivery body structure, and that the baseline verdict is captured at creation.

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 multi-paragraph but well-structured: purpose first, then webhook behavior, authenticity, delivery body, inputs, and requirements. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. It is long but appropriately sized for a complex webhook creation tool.

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?

The description covers the full scope of the tool: creation inputs, recurring behavior, webhook signature scheme, delivery payload, and first-event semantics. Even without an output schema, it mentions that the signing_key is returned once at creation, giving agents a critical piece of the response. The description is remarkably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does with an 'Inputs (JSON body)' section that explains each parameter: node as 'the node to watch', callback_url as 'an https URL to receive deliveries', and events as optional/reserved defaulting to ['verdict_change']. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Subscribe to a node (ip, domain, asn, or entity slug).' It also explains the webhook semantics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_subscription and delete_subscription. The verb 'subscribe' is specific and the resource (node) is well-defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (setting up recurring change notifications) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_subscriptions or get_subscription. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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