Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Open Tracked MCP

Open Tracked MCP

Official
by OpenTracked-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

open_tracked_domains

Manage subdomains for an Open Tracked container: list existing domains, add a domain and get the CNAME records to create, or remove a domain.

Instructions

Subdomains of a container: 'list', 'add' (the response says which CNAME records to create), or 'remove'. A domain can belong to one container only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "containerId": "<containerId>"
    },
    "name": "open_tracked_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
domainNoFor 'add', e.g. open.myshop.com.
domainIdNoFor 'remove'.
containerIdYesThe Open Tracked container id (the number in its address).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add useful behavior for 'add' (the response tells you which CNAME records to create) and a uniqueness constraint on domains. However, it says nothing about authorization, what 'list' returns, or whether 'remove' also affects DNS records, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the resource and constraint are front-loaded. The fragmentary style is slightly awkward but efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter, action-multiplexed tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action meanings and one behavioral consequence but omits return contents for 'list', error/edge behavior, and any permission context. Adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and the schema already documents domain ('For add'), domainId ('For remove'), and containerId. The description adds only the CNAME consequence of 'add' and the one-container constraint, which is marginal value over the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('subdomains of a container') and enumerates the three operations (list/add/remove), which a reader can map to a specific tool purpose. It distinguishes itself reasonably from the sibling 'open_tracked_containers', though the phrasing is a sentence fragment rather than a clear verb+object statement.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the action list, and the constraint 'a domain can belong to one container only' hints at a relevant precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no routing to siblings. The reader must infer context from the action names alone.

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