Skip to main content
Glama
Jackalope-Dev

allmcps-server

by Jackalope-Dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

verify_mcp_claim

Confirm ownership and claim an MCP server listing via GitHub README badge, website badge, or DNS TXT record, using agent tokens for unattended checks or an active browser session.

Instructions

Verify ownership and claim an MCP server listing by checking GitHub README badge, website badge, or DNS TXT record. Works two ways: (1) fully unattended — pass agentToken from confirm_mcp_agent (or set an Authorization: Bearer <token> header if your client supports it), no human sign-in needed; or (2) if called with neither, requires the caller to already have an active AllMCPs browser session. Unattended agents should use register_mcp_agent + confirm_mcp_agent first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe server ID to claim & verify (e.g. "github-mcp")
methodNoVerification method (default: github)
agentTokenNoBearer token from confirm_mcp_agent, for unattended verification with no browser sign-in. Requires the "listings:claim" scope.
websiteUrlNoOptional website URL for website/dns verification

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bearer token from confirm_mcp_agent, for unattended verification with no browser sign-in. Requires the \"listings:claim\" scope.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load and does well: it discloses the auth requirement per path, the header alternative, and the fallback condition when no token is supplied. It stops short of disclosing outcomes, failure modes, whether a claim is one-time/idempotent, or rate limits, which are relevant for a privileged claim operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then clearly enumerated (1)/(2) for the two auth modes. Slightly dense and longer than minimal, but every clause carries information about paths, prerequisites, or auth, so little is wasted.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety/auth context an agent needs to call it correctly. What remains unstated is the success/failure behavior and the claim's effect on the listing — useful but not blocking for invocation.

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 per-parameter baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the interaction between agentToken and browser session, and the prerequisite tool that produces agentToken. It adds context on top of, rather than merely repeating, the field docs.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Verify ownership and claim an MCP server listing,' with the three concrete verification mechanisms (GitHub README badge, website badge, DNS TXT record) spelled out. No sibling does claiming/verification, and the description ties itself to the register/confirm chain, so an agent can place it precisely in the toolset.

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?

Explicitly lays out the two invocation paths — unattended via agentToken/Bearer header, versus requiring an existing browser session when neither is passed — and names the condition selecting each. It also states the prerequisite ordering ('use register_mcp_agent + confirm_mcp_agent first'), leaving nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools