Skip to main content
Glama

mcphost

by dev.mcphost
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

signup

Explicit signup, for a client that cannot keep a session across calls: create a tenant and receive a bearer key and namespace. Unauthenticated. Most clients never need this -- any other host./billing. call from a fresh connection creates a tenant implicitly and returns its own /u//mcp URL in the response's onboarding field. Recommended here: pass handoff: true to receive a short-lived, single-use handoff_token instead of the raw key -- redeem it once with host.redeem to get the key, so a transcript of this call and the redeem call, if it leaks, carries a dead credential. The raw-key path (handoff omitted) stays fully supported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesdisplay name
handoffNoRecommended: true to receive a handoff_token (redeem via host.redeem) instead of the raw key. Default false (raw key, unchanged).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / handoff
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recommended: true to receive a handoff_token (redeem via host.redeem) instead of the raw key. Default false (raw key, unchanged).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is unauthenticated, explains the handoff_token security model (short-lived, single-use, transcript leakage yields a dead credential), and confirms the raw-key path remains supported. It omits edge-case behavior such as name collisions, idempotency of repeat signups, or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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-loads the core purpose and audience in the first clause, then layers the alternative path and the handoff recommendation. Four dense sentences with no filler, though the handoff security rationale could be tightened slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description names the salient returns (bearer key, namespace, handoff_token, onboarding URL). It is sufficient for a 2-parameter tool, but it does not clarify response field names or the namespace's role, leaving a small gap.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics for handoff beyond the schema: it is recommended, yields a short-lived single-use token redeemable once via host.redeem, and its purpose is leak containment. The name parameter gets no additional description, but the handoff elaboration lifts this above baseline.

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 outcome: create a tenant and receive a bearer key and namespace, explicitly framed as an 'explicit signup' for sessionless clients. It distinguishes itself from the implicit tenant creation performed by other host.*/billing.* calls and from host.redeem, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says most clients never need this and names the alternative path (any fresh host.*/billing.* call creates a tenant implicitly, returning an onboarding URL). It also gives the selecting condition ('a client that cannot keep a session across calls') and recommends a specific parameter value.

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

All mcphost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources