Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

claim_start

Idempotent

Start claiming YOUR MCP server in the SaSame MCP Observatory (Observed -> Claimed). Returns a challenge token bound to your endpoint. Prove you control the domain by EITHER (a) serving the token at https:///.well-known/mcp-ready-claim.txt, OR (b) a DNS TXT record at _mcp-ready-claim.. Then call claim_confirm. Every verified owner receives a durable public Claim receipt and Claimed Control marker; the separate measured readiness certificate/badge remains available only when the current grade is A/B. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesYour MCP server endpoint URL (https) to claim

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations indicating idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only, the description adds significant context: returns a challenge token, two verification methods, receipt and marker upon verification, and conditions for readiness badge. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense but structured: purpose, method, outcomes. A bit long but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers purpose, input, multi-step process, and results. No output schema, but describes return of challenge token. Missing error cases, but adequate for initiating a multi-step flow.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single required parameter 'url'. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Start claiming' and the resource 'YOUR MCP server'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like claim_confirm and town_claim_start by describing the initiating step of the claim process.

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 this tool (to start claiming) and outlines the subsequent steps (serve token or DNS record, then call claim_confirm). It implicitly suggests not to use if already claimed, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools.

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