Skip to main content
Glama

Sitey — free subdomains

by my.sitey
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_txt_record

Create or update a TXT record for domain verification. Used for services like Vercel (_vercel) and Netlify that require DNS-based ownership proof. The record is placed at the root domain under the prefix you give (e.g. _vercel.sitey.my), alongside the other owners' values — that is the name Vercel reads for a subdomain of sitey.my.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesTXT record value (the verification token)
domainYesRoot domain (e.g. 'sitey.my')
subdomainYesSubdomain name (e.g. 'demo')
root_levelNoNo longer supported — TXT records are always written at the root domain. Passing true returns an error.
host_prefixYesTXT record host prefix (e.g. '_vercel' for Vercel verification)
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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose important placement behavior: records live at the root domain under the given prefix alongside other owners' values. However, it omits idempotency/reversibility, authentication requirements, and what the response contains, so there is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is three focused sentences: it states the action, gives the use case, and clarifies placement. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The parameter schema already documents all six parameters in detail, so the description only needs to supply selection and behavioral context. It does that well with purpose, use case, and the unexpected root-domain placement. It could add response/error behavior, but this is not a major gap given the schema richness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a clarifying example of how host_prefix and domain combine into the record name, which helps, but it does not substantially explain parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Create or update a TXT record') on a specific resource and clearly ties it to a purpose (domain verification for Vercel/Netlify). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_txt_record and create_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 gives concrete usage context by naming Vercel and Netlify DNS ownership proof, which helps an agent recognize when this tool applies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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