Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

pageaudit

by online.pageaudit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Apply domain alerts

apply_domain_alerts
Destructive

Requires the account session, current X-Organization-Id and CSRF for writes. Apply the reviewed selection. Requires the preview from preview_domain_alerts. A stale preview changes nothing. Does not activate monitors, purchase access or change certificate notice timing. Select up to 25 saved pages. Repeated registrable domains count once. The server checks the account, organization and current revisions again. A stale preview changes nothing. This does not activate monitoring or purchase access.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tabs": "<tabs>",
      "lead_days": "<lead_days>",
      "preview": "<preview>"
    },
    "name": "apply_domain_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabsYesOne to 25 owned tab IDs.
previewYesExact preview from the POST response for these tabs and lead_days.
lead_daysYesDays before domain expiry for renewal notices.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses auth requirements (account session, X-Organization-Id, CSRF for writes), server-side revalidation of account/organization/revisions, the 25-item cap, and de-duplication of repeated registrable domains. What it does not clarify is the destructiveHint=true surface — which existing alert settings are overwritten or removed by applying a new selection.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loads the auth precondition, which is good, but 'A stale preview changes nothing' appears twice and the no-monitoring/no-purchase caveat is restated at the end in near-identical wording. Removing the duplicated sentences would tighten it without losing information.

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?

For a 3-parameter, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers auth, revalidation, limits, de-duplication and explicit non-effects, so an agent can call it safely. The remaining gap is the response: nothing says what a successful apply returns or how partial/failed selections are reported.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns credit for adding semantics the schema lacks — that 'tabs' are saved/owned pages, that repeated registrable domains collapse to one, and that 'preview' must be the exact artifact returned for the same tabs and lead_days pairing. It adds nothing further on lead_days beyond the enum's own description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the verb ('apply'), the resource ('domain alerts') and its prerequisite ('Requires the preview from preview_domain_alerts'), which sets it apart from that sibling. It never quite states in one plain sentence what an applied alert actually is, leaving the agent to infer from 'renewal notices' and 'saved pages' that it registers expiry-notice preferences for tabs.

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 explicitly requires a prior call to preview_domain_alerts and warns that 'a stale preview changes nothing', which is clear when-this-applies guidance. It also rules out neighbouring functions ('Does not activate monitors, purchase access or change certificate notice timing'), but it never says what to do instead when the preview is stale — re-preview, presumably.

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

All pageaudit 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