premium-domains
Server Details
Search, appraise, trademark-check, and buy premium brandable domain names.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool has a uniquely defined purpose: appraisal, availability check, name generation, details, checkout, trademark screening, and marketplace search. No two tools overlap, and descriptions clearly distinguish them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., appraise_domain, check_domain_availability). The verbs are descriptive and align with the tool's action.
With 7 tools, the server covers the core domain workflow (valuation, search, availability, details, purchase, trademark check) without being bloated or sparse.
The server covers most key actions for domain discovery and purchase, but lacks a direct 'register_domain' tool (only a checkout link is provided). This is a minor gap that agents can work around.
Available Tools
7 toolsappraise_domainARead-onlyInspect
Estimate the market value of a domain and explain why. Use when a user asks what a domain is worth, how much to pay/offer, or to appraise a domain.
Returns two SEPARATE numbers — do not conflate them: • estimated_value — Atom's estimated market price in USD (an estimate, never a guaranteed or quoted price). • domain_score — a 0–10 rating of the NAME's quality/brandability/desirability (10 = strongest). This is a quality score, NOT a confidence level and NOT a probability. A low domain_score means a weaker/less desirable name, not that the estimate is uncertain.
Also returns domain_score_label (weak/moderate/strong), factors (positive/negative signals behind the estimate), and comparable_sales. When presenting: state the estimated value as a price, describe domain_score as a quality rating (e.g. '6/10 — moderate brandability'), and NEVER describe domain_score as 'confidence'. Read the score_meaning field in the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Full domain to appraise, including the extension, e.g. 'example.com'. Works for any domain, not just Atom listings. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| factors | No | Signals behind the estimate. |
| success | Yes | |
| currency | No | |
| disclaimer | No | |
| domain_score | Yes | 0–10 quality rating of the NAME (NOT a confidence level). |
| score_meaning | No | Explains domain_score is a quality rating, not confidence. |
| estimated_value | Yes | Atom's estimated market value in USD (an estimate, not a quote). |
| comparable_sales | No | Recent comparable sales (best-effort; .com only). |
| domain_score_max | No | |
| domain_score_label | No | Human label for domain_score. |
| estimated_value_meaning | No | How to interpret estimated_value. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral details beyond annotations: it clarifies that estimated_value is an estimate, not guaranteed; explains domain_score is a quality rating (0–10) and not confidence or probability; warns not to describe domain_score as confidence; and mentions return fields like factors and comparable_sales. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise for the amount of information conveyed. It is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then bullet-list-like explanations of the two numbers, then presentation guidance. However, it could be slightly more concise (e.g., combine sentences about domain_score). It front-loads the main purpose, which is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context signal indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail every return field, but it still mentions key fields: estimated_value, domain_score, domain_score_label, factors, comparable_sales, and score_meaning. It also explains how to present them. For a tool with one parameter and a clear output, the description is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'domain' with a description that already says 'Full domain to appraise, including the extension.' The description adds extra context: 'Works for any domain, not just Atom listings.' This adds value beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the extra context raises it to 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Estimate the market value of a domain and explain why.' It uses a specific verb (estimate) and resource (domain market value), and explains the context of use (what a domain is worth, how much to pay/offer). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on appraisal rather than availability or generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a user asks what a domain is worth, how much to pay/offer, or to appraise a domain.' It also provides guidance on how to interpret results (not conflating numbers, describing domain_score as quality). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for availability checks), though that is implicitly clear from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_domain_availabilityARead-onlyInspect
Check whether ONE specific, fully-spelled domain is available, taken, or a premium listing. Use whenever a user names a specific domain (e.g. "is acme.com available?", "who owns x.io?", "can I get nova.ai?"). For open-ended "suggest names for my idea" requests use search_brandable_domains instead.
Returns: status ("available" = registrable now | "taken" = registered/unavailable | "premium" = for sale on Atom), registrable (bool), price + currency when applicable, estimated_value (rough appraisal, optional), and alternatives[] — when the domain is taken or premium, the closest available premium names from Atom (each with domain, price, url) so the user always has a buyable path. Ends with an Atom url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, including extension, e.g. 'example.com'. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Atom URL for this domain. |
| price | No | Price in USD when applicable. |
| domain | Yes | |
| status | Yes | available = registrable now; taken = registered/unavailable; premium = for sale on Atom. |
| success | Yes | |
| currency | No | |
| registrable | Yes | Whether the domain can be registered now. |
| alternatives | No | Closest available Atom premium names when the domain is taken/premium. |
| estimated_value | No | Rough appraisal in USD (optional). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return fields (status, registrable, price, alternatives, etc.) and ends with Atom URL. readOnlyHint annotation aligns with read-only nature; no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose, usage, returns front-loaded. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, description still thoroughly explains return values and behavior, making it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers parameter 'domain' with description; description repeats it's a fully-spelled domain but adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks availability/taken/premium for a specific domain, distinguishing it from search_brandable_domains for open-ended requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use when user names a specific domain, and provides alternative tool for open-ended suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_domain_namesARead-onlyInspect
Invent NEW brandable domain name candidates for a concept, then ground each against live availability and Atom premium inventory — so every returned name is actually obtainable. Use when search_brandable_domains' curated results aren't enough, or the user explicitly wants fresh/invented/made-up names they can register. (For existing curated listings, prefer search_brandable_domains.)
Returns results[], each with: domain (full name incl. extension), status ('available' = registrable now | 'premium' = an Atom listing), price + currency when known, style_tags, and url. Only names with availability/price attached are returned — never ungrounded ideas. Present as a list noting which are register-now vs Atom premium listings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of candidates to return (capped server-side). | |
| style | No | Optional stylistic preferences. | |
| concept | Yes | The idea, product, or business to generate names for. | |
| industry | No | Optional industry or category. | |
| extensions | No | Optional preferred extensions. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Atom marketplace search URL for the concept. |
| count | No | Number of candidates returned. |
| concept | No | |
| results | Yes | Invented candidates, each grounded against live availability/inventory. |
| success | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that results are grounded against live availability, only returning obtainable names with associated price/status, and describes the output format. No contradictions and adds significant context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by usage guidelines and output explanation. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, output format, and grounding process. It covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it mentions the count cap server-side but that's already implied. The description focuses on the tool's behavior and output, not parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it invents new brandable domain names for a concept, grounding them against live availability and Atom premium inventory. It distinguishes from sibling search_brandable_domains by specifying that this tool generates fresh/invented names rather than using curated listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use when search_brandable_domains' curated results are insufficient or when the user wants invented names, and to prefer search_brandable_domains for existing curated listings. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_checkout_linkARead-onlyInspect
Generate a pre-filled, authenticated Atom checkout URL for a chosen domain so the user can pay on Atom. Use when a user wants to BUY a domain but is not using balance registration, lacks sufficient balance, or prefers to pay per purchase (card/PayPal). This is the no-debit alternative to register_domain.
IMPORTANT: this tool only returns a link — it does NOT charge anything or complete a purchase. Returns: domain, price + currency, checkout_url (give this to the user to finish payment), and expires_at. Present the price and the checkout link; tell the user payment completes on Atom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to purchase, including extension. | |
| term_years | No | Registration term in years, where applicable. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| price | No | Price in USD. |
| domain | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| currency | No | |
| expires_at | No | When the checkout link expires. |
| checkout_url | Yes | Pre-filled Atom checkout URL — give this to the user to pay. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool only returns a link and does not charge or complete a purchase, adding context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose first, then important details and return info. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose; could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lists all return fields (domain, price, checkout_url, expires_at) and instructs how to present them. Output schema exists and description supplements it well. Complete for tool complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; mentions 'pre-filled' but does not provide syntax or format details beyond schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a checkout URL for payment on Atom. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's the no-debit alternative to register_domain, which is not in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: when user wants to buy a domain but not using balance registration or prefers per-purchase payment. Also names the alternative tool register_domain, providing clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_domain_detailsARead-onlyInspect
Get the full detail record for ONE specific Atom domain listing — the deep-dive after a user picks a name from search_brandable_domains or generate_domain_names, or asks to know more about a particular domain.
Returns: status, price + currency, extension_options[] (other TLDs of the name for sale, with prices), category, description, age/traffic when available, and purchase_url/details_url. If the domain is not an Atom listing, returns error "not_found" (then use check_domain_availability for registry status). Present price, key attributes, and the purchase link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to look up, including extension. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| age | No | |
| url | Yes | |
| price | No | Listing price in USD. |
| domain | Yes | |
| status | No | |
| success | Yes | |
| traffic | No | |
| category | No | |
| currency | No | |
| description | No | |
| details_url | No | Atom details page. |
| purchase_url | No | Direct purchase link. |
| extension_options | No | Other TLDs of the name for sale, with prices. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the returned fields (status, price, currency, extension_options, category, description, age/traffic, purchase_url/details_url) and error handling (not_found error). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose, then lists return fields and error handling. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and all information is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return fields, error handling, and alternative tool guidance. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds context that the domain must be an Atom listing and implies the format includes the extension, which provides additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Get the full detail record for ONE specific Atom domain listing.' It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'domain details,' and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is a 'deep-dive after a user picks a name from search_brandable_domains or generate_domain_names.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('after a user picks a name from search_brandable_domains or generate_domain_names') and when not to ('If the domain is not an Atom listing, returns error "not_found" (then use check_domain_availability for registry status)'), providing clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_trademark_conflictsARead-onlyInspect
Run a PRELIMINARY screen for existing trademark conflicts on a brand or domain name against public USPTO records. Use when a user asks whether a name is trademarked, already taken as a trademark, or safe to use as a brand. Returns preliminary exact/close matches with status and owner — this is a screen, not legal advice or a clearance opinion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Match strictness. exact = identical mark; phrase = close; broad = widest. | phrase |
| name | Yes | The brand or domain name to screen (extension is ignored, e.g. "acme" or "acme.com"). | |
| limit | No | Max results (capped server-side). | |
| status | No | Filing status filter. active = live registered marks. | all |
| trademark_class | No | Optional Nice/USPTO international class to filter by (1–45, e.g. 9 = software, 35 = business services). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| name | Yes | The normalized name that was screened. |
| count | No | Number of matches returned. |
| total | No | Total matching records upstream. |
| matches | Yes | Preliminary exact/close trademark matches from public USPTO records. |
| success | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | Preliminary screen, not legal advice. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's disclosure of a preliminary, non-authoritative screen adds meaningful context. It states the data source (public USPTO records) and the result type (matches with status/owner). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and result/disclaimer. Every sentence is informative without fluff. Front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description adequately covers the tool's scope. It could optionally mention filtering by trademark class, but the schema handles that. The disclaimer about not being legal advice adds necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Run a PRELIMINARY screen', the resource 'trademark conflicts on a brand or domain name against public USPTO records', and distinguishes from domain-focused sibling tools. It specifies it returns 'exact/close matches with status and owner'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use: 'when a user asks whether a name is trademarked, already taken as a trademark, or safe to use as a brand.' Also provides a clear limitation: 'this is a screen, not legal advice or a clearance opinion,' guiding against over-reliance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_brandable_domainsARead-onlyInspect
Search Atom's curated marketplace of premium, brandable domains by concept, industry, or style. THE primary tool for naming a startup, product, or company when the user wants real, buyable names (not just ideas). Use whenever a user asks for brandable/business/domain name suggestions for an idea, or wants names they can actually purchase. No login required.
Returns results[] of currently-available premium listings, each with: domain (full name incl. extension), price (USD, the actual buy-now price), style_tags, category, and url (the Atom buy/details page). Every returned name is actively for sale on Atom. To go deeper on one, call get_domain_details; to appraise any name, call appraise_domain; to buy, register_domain or get_checkout_link. Present results as a ranked list with names, prices, and the buy links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (capped server-side). | |
| style | No | Optional stylistic preferences. | |
| concept | Yes | The idea, product, or business to find names for. | |
| industry | No | Optional industry or category, e.g. 'fintech', 'wellness'. | |
| max_price | No | Optional maximum price filter (USD). | |
| extensions | No | Optional preferred extensions, e.g. ['.com', '.io']. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Atom marketplace search URL for the concept. |
| count | No | Number of results returned. |
| concept | No | The concept that was searched. |
| results | Yes | Currently-available premium listings, ranked. |
| success | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that no login is required, results are currently-available premium listings, and each name is actively for sale. This enriches behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose and guidelines. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering usage, returns, and related tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains when to use, what returns, related tools, and login requirement. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches for brandable domains by concept, industry, or style. It distinguishes from sibling tools like appraise_domain and get_domain_details by emphasizing it returns buyable names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says it's the primary tool for naming when users want real, buyable names. Provides context on when to use and directs to other tools for deeper actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!