Skip to main content
Glama

Sitey — free subdomains

by my.sitey
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_subdomain

Create a new DNS record for a subdomain. Supports A records (IP address) and CNAME records (hostname). Example: create demo.sitey.my pointing to 1.2.3.4. No account, API key or signup is needed. The target does not have to be serving yet: claim the name first and deploy to it second if that is your order. The result carries reachable:false when nothing answered, and the record is created either way. If you send no owner_token, the result carries a new one under 'owner_token' — save it, it is shown once and is the only way to change or delete this record later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesRecord type
valueYesRecord value (IP for A, hostname for CNAME)
domainYesRoot domain (e.g. 'sitey.my')
subdomainYesSubdomain name (e.g. 'demo')
owner_tokenNoThe owner token you were given when you created the record (starts with anon_). Omit it only if you have an API key, or if the record predates tokens and was claimed from this same IP address. Creating without one mints a new one and returns it once.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Root domain (e.g. 'sitey.one')"New value: +"Root domain (e.g. 'sitey.my')"
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The owner token you were given when you created the record (starts with anon_). Omit it only if you have an API key, or if the record predates tokens and was claimed from this same IP address. Creating without one mints a new one and returns it once.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
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 discloses important behavior: the record is created even if the target doesn't answer (reachable:false), and a newly minted owner_token is shown once and is the only way to later modify/delete. It also states no auth is required, which is useful non-obvious behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At roughly four sentences, every clause earns its place: purpose, example, auth requirements, and edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded and scannable.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time facts: supported record types, example, auth, pre-deployment usage, and result semantics (reachable, owner_token). It could mention conflict behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 each parameter already has descriptions. The description adds value with a concrete example ('demo.sitey.my pointing to 1.2.3.4') and clarifies the semantics of owner_token, including when to omit it. This is a modest but genuine addition beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new DNS record for a subdomain' and enumerates supported record types (A, CNAME). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_txt_record (TXT records) and delete_subdomain.

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?

It provides clear context: no account/API key needed, and the target need not be serving yet, so the tool can be used to claim a name before deployment. It does not explicitly name alternatives like check_availability or create_txt_record, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

All Sitey — free subdomains toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources