Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

get_self_view

P83 Gate 1. The caller is the subject: every fact here comes from the TLS handshake and headers the caller has already sent, so there is no render, no browser, and nothing to authorize.

Three surfaces:

  • client — user-agent, HTTP protocol, TLS version/cipher, ClientHello length, the pre-hashed JA3/JA4 input components, header order.

  • state — how many cookies were sent (never their values), Referer, DNT, Global Privacy Control.

  • network — address, ASN and operator, coarse geography, edge colo, and the four-lens verdict on the caller's own IP.

Every field carries a coverage state from the same three-value vocabulary as /v1/verify: observed_clean, never_observed, degraded. There is no fourth state. Fields that run inside a page — localStorage, canvas fingerprinting, cookie values — are reported never_observed with reason not_observable_server_side, because they are outside a server's vantage rather than missing.

claim_vs_conduct compares the claimed user-agent against the shape of the request itself and returns consistent, mismatch, or unverifiable, with the evidence listed. It is deliberately narrow: JA4 requires Cloudflare Enterprise + Bot Management, so there is no portable fingerprint to look up in a public corpus, and this check only reports contradictions it can demonstrate from the request in hand. unverifiable is the honest default and is never dressed up as a pass.

Use this tool when:

  • You want to know what a server learns about your client without asking you anything.

  • You are checking whether a client's user-agent claim matches its conduct.

Do NOT use this tool when:

  • You need facts about some OTHER host — that is POST /v1/verify/{node}.

Must be called directly at data.tunnelmind.ai. Behind a proxy, the connection properties describe the proxy, not the caller.

?receipt=true attaches a signed Receipt v1.0 committed to the transparency log.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receiptNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: no rendering/browser/authorization, the three-value coverage vocabulary with no fourth state, the deliberate narrowness of claim_vs_conduct (unverifiable default), and the proxy effect on connection properties. This is comprehensive and prevents misuse.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections and bullet points, but is somewhat long due to detailed explanations about coverage states, JA4 limitations, and claim_vs_conduct behavior. While these details are valuable, a few sentences could be tightened without losing essential information.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining return data and operational nuances. It covers the three data surfaces, coverage states, edge cases, usage exclusions, and receipt behavior, making it complete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The only parameter `receipt` is explained in the description ('?receipt=true attaches a signed Receipt v1.0 committed to the transparency log'), fully compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. The boolean semantics and its effect are clear.

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 opens with 'The caller is the subject' and enumerates three surfaces (client, state, network), clearly defining the tool as returning self-view data about the caller. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'Do NOT use when... other host', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description includes a dedicated 'Use this tool when' and 'Do NOT use this tool when' section, explicitly naming the alternative for other hosts (POST /v1/verify/{node}). It also adds the proxy caveat requiring direct calls to data.tunnelmind.ai, providing clear context for correct invocation.

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

Try in Browser

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