Skip to main content
Glama

Hatch

by com.viberooster
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Protect a site with a login

auth
DestructiveIdempotent

Put a sign-in screen in front of a forever roost so visitors must authenticate. Pass hatchId plus an action: • enable with mode: "password" and a password → ONE shared site password (everyone uses the same one). Best for a private demo or staging link. • setPassword with a new password → rotate the shared password. • disable → remove the login and serve the site publicly again. • status → report whether auth is on and which mode. Returns { enabled, mode, loginUrl }. Auth is only available on forever roosts — call checkout with grant publish first (do not convert newTier: forever). The sign-in screen lives at /__roost/login. Prefer password mode; useraccounts is unavailable (per-hatch databases are no longer provisioned).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo`password` = one shared site password (recommended). `useraccounts` is unavailable. Required when `action` is `enable`.
actionNoWhat to do. Defaults to `status`.
hatchIdNoHatch id from the original hatch response.
passwordNoThe shared site password (password mode only). Required for `enable` (password mode) and `setPassword`.
tenantIdNoLegacy alias for `hatchId` from the original hatch response.
sessionTokenNoOptional paired session token from poll_pairing (when Authorization headers are unavailable).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hatchId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hatch id from the original hatch response.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tenantId / description
      Previous value: -"Tenant id from the original hatch response."New value: +"Legacy alias for `hatchId` from the original hatch response."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "tenantId"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and read-only behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: exact return shape `{ enabled, mode, loginUrl }`, the login URL `/__roost/login`, the irreversible-sounding `disable` behavior, and the availability constraint on `forever` roosts. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured with a bulleted action list, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds non-redundant information such as prerequisites, return shape, and login URL. It is appropriately sized for a multi-action tool.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, action semantics, parameter combinations, return value shape, and important constraints. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to select and invoke this tool 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. The description adds value by mapping actions to required parameters (e.g., `enable` with `mode: 'password'` and `password`, `setPassword` with new `password`, `disable`, `status`) and clarifies that `useraccounts` is unavailable despite being present in the schema enum.

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 action and resource: 'Put a sign-in screen in front of a `forever` roost so visitors must authenticate.' It further enumerates the four operations (enable, setPassword, disable, status), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from any generic auth tool.

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?

Provides explicit when and when-not guidance: auth is only available on `forever` roosts, requires calling `checkout` with grant `publish` first, and explicitly says not to convert newTier to forever. It also advises preferring `password` mode and notes `useraccounts` is unavailable.

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

All Hatch 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