ship.page

Claim an anonymous drop

claim_drop

Destructive

Attach an anonymously deployed drop to the authenticated account using its one-time claim token (spc_..., returned once by deploy_html/deploy_files). Claiming extends the drop to the free-account lifetime (90 days) and can revive an offline drop during its 30-day private recovery window. Claimed drops become listable, deletable, and — on paid plans — redeployable via named drops. Requires an sp_ API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The drop slug (the subdomain part of its shipped.run URL).
`claim_token`	Yes	The one-time spc_... token returned at deploy time.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`claimed`	Yes
`restored`	No	True when the drop had already expired and was revived by the claim
`expires_at`	No	ISO timestamp after the claim's lifetime extension, or null

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"The drop slug (the subdomain part of its shipped.page URL)."New value: +"The drop slug (the subdomain part of its shipped.run URL)."

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / expires_at

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO timestamp after the claim's lifetime extension, or null",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / restored

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True when the drop had already expired and was revived by the claim",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive potential (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the token is one-time, claiming extends lifetime to 90 days, revives offline drops in a 30-day recovery window, and enables listing/deletion/redeployment. It does not fully explain destructive consequences, but the one-time token warning is critical and informative.

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 three sentences and every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: action + token source, effects, and prerequisites/options. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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 the two required parameters, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use, what claiming does, the one-time nature of the token, the lifetime extension, and the API key requirement. Nothing critical for correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the claim_token parameter by stating its exact format (spc_...), that it is one-time, and that it comes from deploy_html/deploy_files endpoints. This helps an agent know where to find the token, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Attach') and a clear resource ('anonymously deployed drop to the authenticated account'), and differentiates the tool from siblings like deploy_html/deploy_files by focusing on the claim token. It also explains the concrete outcome (lifetime extension, reviving offline drops), so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 gives clear context for when to use claim_drop: after deploying anonymously and when the drop needs to be attached to the account. It mentions prerequisites (sp_ API key) and the one-time token source, but it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools such as restore_drop for other recovery scenarios.

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

All ship.page tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or lifecycle action: deploy_html vs deploy_files separate single-file from multi-file deploys, append_files adds to an existing drop, and claim/restore/delete/list cover different drop states. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All nine tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. deploy_html, deploy_files, list_drops, restore_drop. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the target resource.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a deployment service covering deploy, file management, lifecycle, and account/limit information. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming surface area.

Completeness4/5

The core drop lifecycle is covered: deploy, append files, claim, list, delete, and restore, plus account and limits context. Minor gaps exist around per-file updates/overwrites and named-drop redeployment not being exposed as an explicit tool, but agents can accomplish the main workflows.

Resources

Need Help?