Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

402cron

by com.402cron
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Register a destination URL

register_destination
Destructive

Claim an https:// URL you control. We answer with a challenge and a SIGNING SECRET that is shown ONCE and never again — store it before you do anything else; it is what lets you verify that a delivery really came from us. The permission covers that path and everything beneath it, nothing above. Verification is one request from us to the exact URL you registered: POST, headers X-402cron-Challenge: and X-402cron-Event: verify, JSON body {"challenge":""}. Reply within 5 seconds, without a redirect, with a body that is the bare value or {"challenge":""}; we read the first 512 bytes and do not check the HTTP status (2xx is fine). Then call POST /api/destinations/{id}/verify within 15 minutes of registering. A fixed-response webhook cannot pass: you need an endpoint you can program. Registering a URL that is still pending issues a new challenge and a new signing secret every time — the old secret immediately stops verifying deliveries; a verified URL is left untouched unless you add ?rotate=1. The daily verification allowance (10 per destination, 40 per client, UTC day) does not reset on re-registration.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "register_destination"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe https:// URL you control.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that the signing secret is shown once and invalidates prior secrets on pending re-registration, that verified URLs are untouched unless rotating, that path scope is inherited downward but not upward, and that the daily verification allowance does not reset. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the irreversible secret warning placed first where it matters most. Some of the verification-protocol detail (headers, 512-byte read, status-code handling) is arguably hunting for verify_destination, but it is defensible as the contract the endpoint must satisfy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what comes back (challenge + one-time signing secret) and what the caller must do next. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 adds real meaning beyond the schema: the URL must be https, you must control it, and the permission scope extends to everything beneath that path but nothing above it.

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+resource ('Claim an https:// URL you control') and immediately explains what the call produces (a challenge and a one-time signing secret). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_destination, list_destinations, and delete_destination.

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 sets a precondition (you need a programmable endpoint; 'a fixed-response webhook cannot pass'), a follow-up step within 15 minutes, and the re-registration semantics including the ?rotate=1 exception for verified URLs. The only nit is that the follow-up is referenced by HTTP path rather than the sibling tool name verify_destination.

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

All 402cron toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources