InsumerAPI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Request domain verification

insumer_request_domain_verification

Request a domain verification token for a merchant to verify ownership via DNS TXT, HTML meta tag, or file upload; verified merchants get a trust badge. Owner only.

Instructions

Request a domain verification token for a merchant. Returns the token and three ways to place it: DNS TXT record, HTML meta tag, or file upload. Verified merchants get a trust badge in the public directory. Owner only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Merchant ID
`domain`	Yes	Domain to verify (e.g. 'example.com')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	true when the API call succeeded
`data`	No	The endpoint's payload: a signed attestation, trust profile, discount, merchant or token records
`keys`	No	JWKS entries (insumer_jwks)
`meta`	No	Response metadata such as version and timestamp
`error`	No	Error details when ok is false
`items`	No	The result when the endpoint returns a JSON array
`message`	No	A plain-text result (insumer_setup), or a message from the API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.16.0Oct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / domain / maxLength
```
Added value: +253
```

addedInput schema / properties / domain / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9](?:[A-Za-z0-9-]{0,61}[A-Za-z0-9])?\\.)+(?:[A-Za-z]{2,63}|xn--[A-Za-z0-9-]{1,59})$"

addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
addedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The endpoint's payload: a signed attestation, trust profile, discount, merchant or token records"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error details when ok is false"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The result when the endpoint returns a JSON array",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "keys": {
+      "description": "JWKS entries (insumer_jwks)",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A plain-text result (insumer_setup), or a message from the API"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "description": "Response metadata such as version and timestamp"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the API call succeeded",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.1.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: what the call returns (token + three placement mechanisms), the auth constraint ('Owner only'), and the downstream benefit (trust badge in the public directory). It does not mention rate limits or token expiry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: what is requested, what comes back, and the permission gate. Front-loaded with the core action and no redundant filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated (though the description helpfully summarizes them). With annotations covering the mutation/safety profile and the description adding the owner-only constraint and outcome, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% for both parameters (id and domain), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Request a domain verification token for a merchant') with concrete output detail (token plus DNS TXT, HTML meta tag, or file upload). It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling insumer_verify_domain, so sibling differentiation rests largely on the tool name.

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?

The 'Owner only' note gives a prerequisite/permission gate, and the description implies the tool is a first step before verification. However, it never states when to call this versus insumer_verify_domain or what to do after placing the token, leaving workflow routing to inference.

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