begin_domain_authorizationCreate a DNS TXT or HTTPS-file challenge proving control of a domain. This does not run an assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| domain | Yes | Domain name only; no scheme, path, port, credentials, or wildcard. | |
| method | Yes | ||
| workspaceSlug | Yes | Workspace slug selected during agent authorization. | |
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
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 establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait that no assessment is started and that the tool only creates a proof-of-control challenge. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying statement that this does not run an assessment earns its place by preventing confusion with sibling assessment tools.
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?
The tool creates a challenge artifact, but the description does not state what is returned (e.g., TXT record value, file contents) or what the user should do next (e.g., publish the challenge and then use check_domain_authorization). With no output schema, this is a meaningful gap, though the description is still sufficient for selecting the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 40%: domain and workspaceSlug have descriptions, while method, idempotencyKey, and label do not. The description maps the method enum values to plain language ('DNS TXT' and 'HTTPS-file'), but it does not explain the purpose of idempotencyKey or label, so compensation for the low schema coverage is only partial.
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 ('Create'), a concrete resource ('DNS TXT or HTTPS-file challenge'), and the purpose ('proving control of a domain'). It also disambiguates from assessment tools with 'This does not run an assessment.'
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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to prove domain control via a challenge. It also provides an explicit when-not by stating that it does not run an assessment, which separates it from launch_assessment. However, it does not explicitly mention check_domain_authorization as the follow-up verification tool or name other alternatives.
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 targets a distinct resource-action pair: get/list/search for CVE records, begin/check for domain authorization, prepare/launch/cancel for assessment lifecycle, and get/list for assets, findings, and reports. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent selecting a tool.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_assessments, get_finding, launch_assessment, and search_public_cve_records. Naming conventions are uniform across the entire set, making tool behavior predictable.
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side and falls into the borderline range for tool count. The tools are individually justified by a broad domain, but the surface area is larger than a typical focused server needs.
The core assessment lifecycle is well covered: domain authorization can be created and checked, assessments can be prepared, launched, cancelled, and retrieved, and findings/reports/assets have read and list support. Minor gaps exist around explicit authorization removal or workspace switching, but these do not block the primary workflow.