Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SatsDNS

by com.satsdns
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Move a token-bought zone or hostname into your account (free, signature + token)

claim
Idempotent

Free: puts a zone or hostname bought with a token into your Nostr account, so you get expiry reminders by DM and can manage it with API keys. If another account owns it, a 72-hour recovery starts instead and that owner is told. Called without nip98 it returns signature_required: the exact URL, method and body to sign, the body's sha256 and an unsigned kind 27235 event template (with proof of work for accounts without a paid order). Sign that, then call again with the same arguments plus nip98. Each signed event works once, within 60 s. Secrets that are ours to receive: object tokens, account API keys (jdk_), signed NIP-98 events; never a private key (nsec or 64 hex characters), wallet connection string or seed words. A raw hex key or seed words inside a sentence cannot be caught here. The signature_required answer shows the body with the token masked; its sha256 covers the real token.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesZone or dynamic hostname.
nameYesThe zone (example.com) or hostname (myhome.dynkite.com).
nip98NoThe signed NIP-98 event (base64 of its JSON) for exactly the request the signature_required answer of the same call named. Sign it with your own Nostr signer (local key, NIP-46 bunker or a signer tool); never send the private key itself, in any form (nsec, hex or seed words).
tokenYesIts token (jdz_... or jdh_...) from the create answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 72-hour recovery on owned names with owner notification, single-use signed events with a 60 s window, secret-types accepted vs. rejected, and masking of the token in the signature_required body while its sha256 covers the real token. This is well past the annotation baseline. Minor tension: idempotentHint=true sits awkwardly with 'each signed event works once,' though the claim action itself is idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the two-step protocol, then the secret-handling constraints. Sentences carry information, but the private-key warning is repeated from the schema and pushes the text long for a 4-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the signature_required response contains (URL, method, body, sha256, kind 27235 template). That covers the return-value gap; a brief note on what a successful claim returns would make it complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's added meaning is mostly about the nip98 round-trip and where the token comes from, which the schema already states; the token-masking/sha256 note is the one genuinely additive point.

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 ('puts a zone or hostname bought with a token into your Nostr account') with the cost and auth model in the title/description. It is clearly distinguishable from creation siblings like zone_create and hostname_create, which produce the token this tool consumes.

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?

Gives the exact call sequence: first call without nip98 returns signature_required, sign it, then re-call with identical arguments plus nip98 within 60 s. It also explains the ownership-recovery branch. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (zone_create, hostname_create, check), so it stops short of the top mark.

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

All SatsDNS 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