DMCA takedown & host reveal for AI agents: who hosts an infringing URL, even behind Cloudflare.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: assess_takedown analyzes the process, resolve_host finds the host, and start_takedown provides the initiation link. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: assess_takedown, resolve_host, start_takedown. No mixing of conventions.
Three tools is well-scoped for a server focused on takedown-related operations. Each tool adds clear value without redundancy.
The tools cover the main workflow: host resolution, process assessment, and initiation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to track or manage ongoing takedowns, but the server explicitly notes it files nothing, making the surface reasonable.
assess_takedownAssess a takedownAAssess how a takedown for this URL would proceed: where the notice goes (host, platform, or a hidden host that must be revealed first), what documents and attestation the content owner must supply, the step-by-step process, and the legal caveats (§512(f), scope limits). Read-only; does not judge the merits of the claim and files nothing. Use resolve_host first if you only need the hosting answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The infringing URL or bare domain | |
| what | No | One line on what was copied (e.g. "my photo set", "my course videos") — echoed into the plan, not judged |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| route | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| target | Yes | |
| process | Yes | |
| fileable | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| legalNotes | Yes | |
| requiredFromYou | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it reiterates that the operation is read-only, clarifies that it does not judge the claim's merits, and states that it files nothing. It also discloses the output includes legal caveats, going beyond what annotations alone imply. No contradiction.
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 three sentences, each carrying substantive information: core purpose, output scope, and usage boundaries. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, with no wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It nonetheless outlines the major output categories (recipient, documents, process, caveats) and behavioral limits. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description only mentions the URL ('for this URL') and implicitly acknowledges the 'what' parameter by saying it is 'echoed into the plan, not judged.' This adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: assess how a takedown for a URL would proceed. It enumerates specific outputs (where notice goes, documents, process, legal caveats) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it files nothing and defers to resolve_host for hosting-only questions.
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?
It explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('Assess how a takedown for this URL would proceed') and when-not-to-use guidance ('does not judge the merits... files nothing'). It also names an alternative: 'Use resolve_host first if you only need the hosting answer.' This fully meets the criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preserve_evidencePreserve a page as evidenceAPreserve a public web page as evidence BEFORE it disappears: a forensic-grade package — full-page screenshot, raw and rendered HTML, HTTP headers, hosting/registrar context, SHA-256 hashes of every artifact, an OpenTimestamps Bitcoin anchor and an Internet Archive snapshot — delivered to the USER'S OWN email in ~2 minutes (free: 3/day, 10/month per email). Use when the user wants to "save proof", "screenshot for court" or fix a scam/infringing page before takedown. Sends one email to the address given; captures only public pages (no logins/paywalls); lawful preservation only. Not notarization — Lawyerd counsel can add a signed declaration of the capture procedure on request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public page URL to preserve | |
| name | No | Requester's name (appears in the capture record) | |
| Yes | The USER'S OWN email — the evidence package is delivered there | ||
| company | No | Company or the work being protected |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| accepted | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| captureId | Yes | |
| errorCode | Yes | |
| deliveredTo | Yes | |
| alreadyCaptured | Yes | |
| verificationUrl | Yes | |
| whatHappensNext | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: email delivery, ~2 min duration, rate limits (3/day, 10/month), content captured, and lawful use. No contradictions with 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?
The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with key action, and each sentence provides essential information without unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the complexity (4 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, constraints, and delivery mechanism comprehensively. Output schema handles return value details.
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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces that email must be the user's own but adds little additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool preserves a public web page as forensic evidence, listing specific outputs and use cases. It distinguishes from siblings (assess_takedown, resolve_host, start_takedown) by focusing solely on evidence capture.
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 explicitly tells when to use ('save proof', 'screenshot for court', fix scam pages) and provides exclusion (lawful preservation only, public pages only). It does not directly name sibling alternatives but context implies appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_hostResolve host & abuse contactALook up who hosts a URL and where an abuse/takedown notice would go. Identifies the CDN/proxy in front (e.g. Cloudflare), the platform, or the direct host and its abuse contact. For direct hosts and previously-revealed domains it returns the real host immediately; for a domain hidden behind a proxy it explains that revealing the true host requires initiating an abuse report. Read-only; files nothing. A lookup, not legal advice; it does not guarantee removal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The infringing URL or bare domain |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| host | Yes | |
| proxy | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| frontedBy | Yes | |
| revealSource | Yes | |
| takedownRoute | Yes | |
| realHostHidden | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it adds 'Read-only; files nothing' and 'A lookup, not legal advice; it does not guarantee removal'. It also discloses distinct behavior for direct hosts vs proxied domains, giving the agent robust expectations about results and limitations.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence contributes unique value: scope, specific identifiers, behavior variations, and caveats. It is detailed yet concise, with no wasted words.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations already declare read-only and open-world nature, the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, and limitations. It also addresses edge cases (proxied vs direct hosts) and sets expectations, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'url' as 'The infringing URL or bare domain' (100% coverage). The description does not add details about URL format or examples, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Look up who hosts a URL and where an abuse/takedown notice would go', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It further specifies outputs (CDN/proxy, platform, direct host, abuse contact), distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like 'start_takedown' and 'preserve_evidence'.
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 provides context for when to use this lookup tool versus proceeding to a takedown: it explains that for proxied domains it states that revealing the true host requires initiating an abuse report, implying a next step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide clear 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start_takedownStart a takedown (onboarding link)AGet the secure onboarding link to actually start a takedown. The content owner opens it once in a browser to identify themselves, sign the standing authorization (the one step that legally requires a human), and provide proof of ownership. Returns the link plus what to prepare and what happens next. Creates nothing by itself; filings targeting lawful criticism, reviews or journalism are declined at intake.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The infringing URL or bare domain |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| humanNote | Yes | |
| onboardingUrl | Yes | |
| whatToPrepare | Yes | |
| whatHappensNext | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds rich process details: the one-time human authorization step, what to prepare, what happens next, that it creates nothing by itself, and intake filtering. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and adds meaningful context beyond 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?
Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: process explanation, prerequisites, return contents, and intake exclusions. No redundancy or filler.
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 description covers the process, prerequisites, expected outcome (link plus preparation/next steps), and intake exclusions. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed here. For a one-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is complete.
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 input schema already fully documents the single required 'url' parameter with a clear description ('The infringing URL or bare domain'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get the secure onboarding link') and names the resource (takedown). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like assess_takedown and preserve_evidence by framing it as the initiation/onboarding step, not the assessment or evidence-preservation step.
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?
Clear context is provided: use when ready to actually start a takedown and need the onboarding link. It states prerequisites (content owner opens link, signs authorization, proves ownership) and an exclusion (filings targeting lawful criticism, reviews, or journalism are declined). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for when to use them instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
