Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

spawnpoint

by com.getspawnpoint
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add custom domain

add_custom_domain

Attach a domain the user owns (e.g. app.example.com) to a spawnpoint project; this needs a paid plan. Returns the DNS records to create: an ownership TXT record and a routing CNAME (or an A record for a root domain). Relay them to the user verbatim, then call verify_custom_domain once the records exist; only a verified domain serves the project, with HTTPS handled automatically on the first visit. The spawnpoint share URL keeps working alongside.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "add_custom_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesthe hostname to attach, e.g. app.example.com; lowercase, no scheme or path
project_idYesthe id of the project

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dnsNo
urlNo
noteNo
domainYes
statusYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: paid-plan prerequisite, exact DNS records returned, the need to relay them to the user, verification gating, automatic HTTPS on first visit, and the fact that the share URL continues to work. These are operational details an agent needs but cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the action and prerequisite, then moves through the DNS output, verification step, HTTPS behavior, and share URL continuity. Every sentence contributes necessary operational guidance without repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still explains the key return values (ownership TXT and routing CNAME/A records) and the verification lifecycle. Combined with the paid-plan caveat, verbatim relay instruction, HTTPS behavior, and share URL continuity, it is complete for this mutation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema fully documents both required parameters, including the domain format and project_id meaning. The description reinforces the domain example and ownership requirement but does not add meaningful 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: attach a user-owned domain to a spawnpoint project. It gives a concrete example and distinguishes the operation from verification and removal by naming the next lifecycle step.

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?

It explicitly says this requires a paid plan, that DNS records must be relayed verbatim, and that verify_custom_domain should be called once those records exist. This gives clear when-to-use and next-step guidance rather than leaving the workflow implicit.

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

All spawnpoint 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