takedown
Server Details
DMCA takedown & host reveal for AI agents: who hosts an infringing URL, even behind Cloudflare.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lawyerd999/dmca-takedown-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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.
Tool Definition Quality
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.
Available Tools
3 toolsassess_takedownAssess a takedownARead-onlyInspect
Assess 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| route | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| target | Yes | |
| process | Yes | |
| fileable | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| legalNotes | Yes | |
| requiredFromYou | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that it is read-only, does not judge merits, and files nothing. It also details what the output covers: hosting, documents, process, legal caveats.
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 sentences: first gives overall purpose, second lists specifics, third clarifies read-only nature and sibling guidance. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.
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 tool has two parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter usage completely. No gaps.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds meaning by noting the 'what' parameter is 'echoed into the plan, not judged', which adds value beyond the schema.
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 assesses how a takedown would proceed for a URL, detailing the hosting location, required documents, process, and legal caveats. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being read-only and not filing anything.
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?
Explicitly advises to use resolve_host if only the hosting answer is needed, and states it does not judge merits or file, implying when not to use. Provides clear context for 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 contactARead-onlyInspect
Look 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| host | Yes | |
| proxy | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| frontedBy | Yes | |
| revealSource | Yes | |
| takedownRoute | Yes | |
| realHostHidden | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations: clarifies it's read-only, files nothing, and that hidden hosts require an abuse report to reveal. No contradiction with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.
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?
Four sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with key purpose, each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, behavior detail, limitation.
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 output schema exists and annotations are present, description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: what it does, edge cases (proxy/direct), and disclaimers. No gaps.
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?
Only parameter 'url' has high schema coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that the URL is 'infringing', slightly enriching meaning beyond the schema description.
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?
Clearly states the tool looks up host and abuse contact for a URL, specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like assess_takedown and start_takedown by emphasizing it's a read-only lookup.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (for identifying host and abuse contact) and when not (it's not legal advice, does not guarantee removal). Explains different behavior for direct vs proxy-hidden hosts.
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)ARead-onlyInspect
Get 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | |
| nextStep | Yes | |
| humanNote | Yes | |
| onboardingUrl | Yes | |
| whatToPrepare | Yes | |
| whatHappensNext | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the human authorization step, that it returns a link, and that it does not create anything. No contradiction 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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful context: purpose, content owner process, what is returned, and what is not created. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers most aspects: purpose, process, return value, and constraints. It could mention the output schema structure but that is already provided separately.
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 describes the 'url' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 immediately states 'Get the secure onboarding link to actually start a takedown', clearly indicating the tool's purpose as providing a link rather than executing the takedown itself. It distinguishes itself from siblings (assess_takedown, resolve_host) by focusing solely on the onboarding 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?
The description implies this is the first step for a takedown and mentions that it 'creates nothing by itself' and declines certain filings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative tools or provide direct exclusions.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!