Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Bannerproof

by app.bannerproof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Link to buy a plan or credits

get_upgrade_link
Read-only

Returns a direct checkout link on bannerproof.app for a plan or audit credits (payment happens there, never in the chat). goal: 'audit' = one-off full report for one domain (€19), 'solo' = monitoring for 1 domain (€11/month), 'monitoring' = up to 7 domains (€49/month), 'agency' = up to 25 domains with white-label reports (€139/month), 'credits' = audit credits for checking any site (5 for €79, 15 for €199, 40 for €449). Prices include VAT; the checkout shows the final price.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "goal": "<goal>"
    },
    "name": "get_upgrade_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesaudit, solo, monitoring, agency or credits
domainNoThe domain the purchase is for, if any (pre-fills it after checkout)
creditsNoFor goal=credits: 5, 15 or 40
languageNoLanguage for the fix instructions and report links: en, de, fr, es, it, nl, da, sv, fi, no, et, pl or pt. Normally the language of the conversation. Default en.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description earns credit for adding real context beyond annotations: payment occurs off-tool, prices are VAT-inclusive, and the checkout shows the final price. It does not state link expiry or whether the link is single-use, which would be the remaining behavioral detail for a checkout link.

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 core action and the 'payment never in chat' constraint are front-loaded in the first clause, with tier detail following. The goal enumeration is a dense run-on that a reader must parse, but every clause carries distinct purchasing information, so there is little waste.

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?

For a read-only link generator with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side-effect boundary (payment elsewhere), goal semantics with pricing, and the credits/domain behaviors. An agent has everything needed to pick a goal and call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping each goal value to concrete meaning — domain counts and price points for audit, solo, monitoring, agency and credits. The credits parameter values and the domain pre-fill behavior are also clarified, adding genuine semantics over the schema enumerations.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a direct checkout link on bannerproof.app for a plan or audit credits') and immediately scopes it against the chat ('payment happens there, never in the chat'). That clearly separates it from siblings like get_report_link or account_info, so an agent needs no schema inspection to tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The parenthetical 'payment happens there, never in the chat' tells the agent this is the purchase path rather than an in-chat transaction, and the goal enumeration makes the tier choice concrete. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over get_report_link or what to do if the user only wants a free scan, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

All Bannerproof toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources