Doorman

doorman_signup

Create a Doorman account for the user with a first form and an API key. Ask the user for their email first. They'll get an email to set a dashboard password. Creates the account's first form too and returns its id and action URL, plus the api_key (store it as DOORMAN_KEY in the project's local secrets file, never commit it). Only for new users: if they already have an account, ask for a key instead. Until the user clicks the confirmation link in that email, nothing is emailed to them (100 checks; Slack and webhooks work).

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "site_url": "<site_url>",
      "site_context": "<site_context>"
    },
    "name": "doorman_signup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	watch delivers would-be drops, tagged; holds still follow forward_holds. Recommended for a new lead form: switch to enforce after a week or two of verdicts look right. Default enforce.
`email`	Yes	The user's email. Real submissions are forwarded here by default.
`site_url`	Yes	The website the form is on, e.g. acme.com
`form_name`	No	Optional name, e.g. 'Contact form' or 'Demo request'
`site_context`	Yes	One or two sentences: what the business sells and to whom. Doorman compares every submission against this. Read the project's README/landing copy to write it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / mode / description

Previous value: -"watch forwards everything and only tags would-be drops. Recommended for a new lead form: switch to enforce after a week or two of verdicts look right. Default enforce."New value: +"watch delivers would-be drops, tagged; holds still follow forward_holds. Recommended for a new lead form: switch to enforce after a week or two of verdicts look right. Default enforce."

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the return payload (form id, action URL, api_key), requires credential handling ('store it as DOORMAN_KEY... never commit it'), and explains the pre-confirmation state ('nothing is emailed to them; 100 checks; Slack and webhooks work'). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 core action and credential guidance, and most sentences earn their place. The parenthetical about '100 checks; Slack and webhooks work' is slightly tangential and the passage runs long, but nothing is wasted or circular.

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 multi-effect provisioning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining both the side effects (form creation, confirmation email) and the return values. An agent has everything needed to invoke and handle the result correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the mode enum's watch/enforce tradeoff. The description adds only a hint about email ('Ask the user for their email first') and does not clarify site_context or site_url beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a Doorman account... with a first form and an API key') and its scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like doorman_create_form, which acts on an existing account rather than provisioning one.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: 'Only for new users: if they already have an account, ask for a key instead,' plus the sequencing instruction 'Ask the user for their email first.' It stops short of naming the sibling (e.g. doorman_whoami) an agent should call to determine whether an account already exists.

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

All Doorman tools Inspect

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

Need Help?