Check how to contact a business website, and whether that contact path actually works.
Given a business website URL, report how a human is meant to make contact and whether that path is actually reachable. Returns a verdict of 'reachable' or 'inconclusive', the forms found with their resolved handler URLs, and any published phone or email. Never submits anything. Answers 'inconclusive' rather than guessing when a site is client-rendered, bot-protected or parked -- about 64% of real sites cannot be judged from outside, and a confident wrong answer is worse than an honest one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The business website URL, e.g. https://example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Never submits anything,' discloses a conservative 'inconclusive' policy for client-rendered, bot-protected, or parked sites, and even quantifies uncertainty (~64% cannot be judged). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then lists return values and behavioral policy in the following two sentences. The 64% statistic and the rationale are slightly verbose but reinforce an important safety behavior, so they earn their place.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description names the key return elements (verdict, forms with handler URLs, phone/email) and explains edge-case behavior. For a single-parameter tool with no siblings and no annotations, this provides a complete picture for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including type, pattern, and an example. The description adds context about what the URL represents but no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('business website URL'), and clearly states what the tool determines: how a human is meant to make contact and whether that path is reachable. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the outcome (verdict, forms, contact info), making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It clearly frames the input as a business website URL and explains what the tool does with it, giving an agent enough context to decide when to invoke it. There are no sibling tools or exclusions to mention, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is not a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
check_contact_pathClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Check how to contact a business website, and whether that contact path actually works.
Is this business's website still there? Checks apex and www, and DNS separately from HTTP.
Scan a business website and see if AI agents can find it, trust it, and act on it.
Check how well AI agents can discover and understand a public website.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of overlap or ambiguity.
The tool name 'check_contact_path' is clear, descriptive, and follows a consistent verb_noun convention.
A single tool is minimal but appropriate for the narrow, well-defined purpose of checking contact affordances.
The tool covers the core domain of detecting contact paths and returns relevant details (emails, phones, forms), though it does not handle actions like submitting forms, which aligns with its stated scope.
