Step 1 of a readiness scan. Returns the domain-ownership token for the URL's host plus the three ways to publish it (DNS TXT record, tag, /.well-known file). The token is deterministic for the host, so calling this again returns the same value. Nothing is stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public https URL of the SaaS signup (or landing) page, e.g. https://example.com/signup |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the token is deterministic (calling again returns the same value) and that nothing is stored. This reinforces the read-only nature and clarifies side effects, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call it repeatedly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional details (determinism, storage, publication methods) are relevant and compact. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (token and three ways to publish) and behavioral properties (deterministic, no storage). It does not describe the exact format of the token or the specific syntax of the publication methods, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap and does not impede correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single 'url' parameter fully, describing it as a public https URL. The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter itself; it only uses 'URL's host' which is implicit. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not go beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (returns the domain-ownership token) and a clear resource (the URL's host). It explicitly lists the three publication methods (DNS TXT, meta tag, .well-known file), which makes the tool's output unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling tools that get or request scans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description positions the tool as 'Step 1 of a readiness scan,' which tells the agent it is the first action in a sequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, but the step ordering gives sufficient context for an agent to know this precedes readiness_get_scan or readiness_request_scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a verification token, requesting a scan, and polling scan results. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the same pattern 'readiness_<verb>_<noun>' (get_scan, get_verification_token, request_scan), providing a consistent and predictable naming convention.
The three tools map directly to the necessary steps of the readiness scan workflow (token, request, result), making the set appropriately scoped without excess or deficiency.
The workflow is fully covered: obtaining the verification token, requesting the scan, and retrieving the final result. No missing operations or dead ends.