Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

claim_confirm

Idempotent

Confirm your domain-control proof and upgrade your SaSame MCP Observatory listing from Observed to CLAIMED. SaSame fetches /.well-known/mcp-ready-claim.txt (or checks the DNS TXT _mcp-ready-claim.) for the challenge token from claim_start. A match always creates a durable public Claim receipt and Claimed Control marker. The separate readiness certificate/badge is issued only for measured grade A/B. SSRF-guarded; free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesYour MCP server endpoint URL (https) — same as claim_start

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description claims creation of a durable receipt on each match, which contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation implying repeated calls have same effect. It does disclose SSRF-guarded and free, but the inconsistency reduces transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the core action and includes useful details like the readiness certificate and SSRF protection, though a bit more conciseness would improve it.

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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, the description is highly complete: it explains the process, conditions, outcome (receipt, claimed marker), and separation of readiness badge. No gaps remain.

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% and the description adds context: the URL must be HTTPS and identical to claim_start. It also explains the verification mechanism, adding value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: confirming domain control proof to upgrade listing from Observed to CLAIMED. It uses specific verbs (confirm, upgrade) and resource (domain listing status), and distinguishes from sibling tools like claim_start and town_claim_confirm.

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?

The description explains when to use (after claim_start, verifying a challenge token) and the process (checking well-known file or DNS TXT). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

All SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.

Resources