Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

town_claim_confirm

Idempotent

Step 2 of claiming your building. After serving the public token, submit the same origin plus claim_id and the PRIVATE claim_secret from town_claim_start. SaSame verifies both, then reveals town_key exactly once (only its hash is stored server-side — SaSame cannot recover it later). The response includes a 'setup' block: show the user setup.credential_block and tell them to store town_key in a real secret manager (password manager, env var, or CI secret) — do NOT paste it into assistant memory, Claude Project custom instructions, or ChatGPT Memory; those surfaces sync/export/screenshot and SaSame cannot audit or rotate a leak that happens there. There is no login — town_key is the only proof of ownership. If it's leaked but still known, call town_rotate_key immediately. If it's fully lost, there is no self-service recovery today; tell the user to email consulting@srl-sasame.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcp_urlYesYour MCP origin — same as town_claim_start
claim_idYesThe clm_… id from town_claim_start
claim_secretYesThe private claim_secret from town_claim_start; never publish it

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The clm_… id from town_claim_start",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_secret
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The private claim_secret from town_claim_start; never publish it",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / mcp_url / description
      Previous value: -"Your MCP server endpoint URL — same as town_claim_start"New value: +"Your MCP origin — same as town_claim_start"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "mcp_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "mcp_url",
+  "claim_id",
+  "claim_secret"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'reveals town_key exactly once' and that only its hash is stored, implying the effect is not repeatable. However, the annotations include idempotentHint=true, which suggests multiple calls with the same parameters would have the same effect. This is a direct contradiction.

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 lengthy but structured with clear warnings and instructions. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value, especially the security guidance.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the response contains ('setup' block) and what the user should do with it. It also covers post-action guidance on storing town_key and recovery procedures.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context that claim_secret is private and should never be published, and that mcp_url and claim_id must match those from town_claim_start.

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 it is 'Step 2 of claiming your building' and explains the action: submit origin, claim_id, and claim_secret to have SaSame verify and reveal town_key. It distinguishes from town_claim_start which initiates the process.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly positions this as step 2 after town_claim_start, tells the user to submit the same origin and claim_id with the private claim_secret, and includes warnings about not storing town_key in insecure places and what to do if lost or leaked.

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