Is this business's website still there? Checks apex and www, and DNS separately from HTTP.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly and uniquely defined.
The single tool name follows a clean verb_noun pattern (check_domain_live), which is consistent and predictable even in isolation.
A single tool is slightly lean but appropriate for the narrow, focused purpose of domain liveness checking. The tool encapsulates the full needed functionality.
The tool covers all core aspects of domain liveness: DNS resolution, HTTP availability, and distinguishing between parked, live, and bot-blocking responses. No significant gaps for the stated domain.
Is this business's website still there? Checks the apex AND www, resolves DNS over HTTPS independently of web requests, falls back to plain HTTP, and separates four things a status code conflates: the name does not resolve, the check itself failed, a recognized parked/suspended/for-sale page answers, and the site refuses bots. Read-only. Will not claim a live page belongs to a different business than the one you asked about.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A hostname or URL, e.g. example.com or https://www.example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden. It reveals the tool's multi-step behavior (DNS resolution, HTTP fallback, bot-recognition, parked-page detection) and explicitly states it will not falsely claim a live page belongs to a different business. This is exceptionally transparent and goes far beyond generic wording.
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 a plain-language purpose and every clause in the following sentence adds value to understanding scope and edge cases. The enumeration of four outcome categories is dense but not redundant; it slightly sacrifices readability for completeness, which justifies a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no siblings, the description is very complete: it covers input, the technical checks performed, read-only behavior, and key result categories. The main gap is that there is no explicit statement of the return value shape, which matters more because there is no output schema.
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 schema already documents the single parameter (domain) as 'A hostname or URL' with 100% coverage. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the tool checks both apex and www, but it does not offer additional format, validation, or normalization instructions beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with a concrete question ('Is this business's website still there?') and then specifies the exact technical scope: checks apex AND www, resolves DNS over HTTPS, falls back to plain HTTP, and distinguishes four distinct outcomes. This is a clear verb-resource pairing that makes the tool's function unmistakable even without siblings to differentiate from.
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?
The opening question signals a clear use case: verify whether a business's website is still live and reachable without being fooled by parked pages or bot-blocking. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but there are no siblings, and the read-only statement plus outcome breakdown gives enough contextual guidance for when to invoke it.
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_domain_liveClaiming 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!
Scan a business website and see if AI agents can find it, trust it, and act on it.
Check how to contact a business website, and whether that contact path actually works.
Check how to contact a business website, and whether that contact path actually works.
DNS lookups, health reports, SSL certs, security scans, GEO scoring, uptime checks
