Skip to main content
Glama

Slab MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Verify post in Slab

slab_verify_post
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify post in the user's own Slab account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Slab step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Slab Cloud Browser. Slab's official API: Slab has a GraphQL API, but only on the Business and Enterprise plans (checked 28 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "slab_verify_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that it returns instructions only and opens nothing by itself, and that execution happens via browser tools, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It does not detail the exact return shape, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and side-effect clarification. The ChatGPT/Claude phrase and API plan note add context but are slightly extraneous; overall there is no major waste.

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?

For a zero-parameter instruction tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to proceed. It leaves some ambiguity about what 'verify post' means in Slab, but enough for an agent to select and chain it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific action: returns step-by-step instructions for verifying a post in the user's own Slab account, and explicitly says it opens nothing by itself. It distinguishes from execution tools by naming cotlet_browser_* as the follow-up, though it does not contrast with slab_read_post or other slab_* siblings.

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?

Explains the workflow: call this to get instructions, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Slab Cloud Browser. It also notes the official API plan limitation, giving context for browser use, but does not state when not to use it or compare with other slab_* tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources