Skip to main content
Glama
marcosnovo

@lexvibe/mcp

by marcosnovo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

claim_app

Create a real LexVibe app in the user's account and return a 7-day claim link; after the user confirms, retrieve the app ID and install snippet.

Instructions

Create a REAL LexVibe app in the user's account (replaces the YOUR_APP_ID placeholder). Returns {claimUrl, code, expiresAt}: show claimUrl to the user so they can sign in and confirm — the link stays valid for 7 days, so the user can open it later. After they confirm, call get_claim_status with code to retrieve the real app id and install snippet. Requires url or appName (errors otherwise). Use this whenever no real LEXVIBE_APP_ID is configured, so hosted policies, consent proof and auto-updates get linked to the user's account; creates nothing until the user confirms the link.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic URL of the app: a website URL when answers.platformType includes 'web', or the App Store / Google Play listing URL when it's mobile-only (ios/android without web). LexVibe scans whichever kind of URL is provided on confirmation.
factsNoscan_project's `facts` object as-is: { authMethods: (apple/google/email/other)[], payments: apple_iap/google_play/stripe/other/none, ai: { userFacing, serverSide, processesPersonalData, providers }, tracking: { idfa, att, adSdks }, devicePermissions: string[] }. Pass it through unchanged — it anchors the generated documents in evidence.
answersNoCompliance flags you already know (pass scan_project's suggestedAnswers): usesAnalytics, processesPayments, usesGenerativeAI, collectsEmails, sharesWithThirdParties, platformType, companyEntity, contactEmail…
appNameNoApp / business name (required if no url is provided).
localesNoscan_project's `locales` — ISO 639-1 language codes the app actually supports, e.g. ['en', 'es'].
marketsNoRegions where the app has users; each market pack cites its own frameworks: eu → GDPR/ePrivacy, uk → UK GDPR/PECR, us → CCPA/CPRA, ca → PIPEDA, latam → LGPD…; 'global' is NOT a union of the others — it only cites generic OECD international privacy best practices, for users outside every listed market. To cover several specific frameworks, list each market explicitly, e.g. ['eu', 'us', 'latam']. Defaults to [eu].
signalsNoscan_project's `signals` — detected processing with vendor names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.12
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"Public URL of the app (website or App Store / Google Play listing). LexVibe scans it on confirmation."New value: +"Public URL of the app: a website URL when answers.platformType includes 'web', or the App Store / Google Play listing URL when it's mobile-only (ios/android without web). LexVibe scans whichever kind of URL is provided on confirmation."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.11
    • changedInput schema / properties / facts / description
      Previous value: -"scan_project's `facts` (structured evidence: auth methods, payments, AI flags, tracking, device permissions). Pass it through unchanged — it anchors the generated documents in evidence."New value: +"scan_project's `facts` object as-is: { authMethods: (apple/google/email/other)[], payments: apple_iap/google_play/stripe/other/none, ai: { userFacing, serverSide, processesPersonalData, providers }, tracking: { idfa, att, adSdks }, devicePermissions: string[] }. Pass it through unchanged — it anchors the generated documents in evidence."
    • changedInput schema / properties / locales / description
      Previous value: -"scan_project's `locales` — languages the app actually supports."New value: +"scan_project's `locales` — ISO 639-1 language codes the app actually supports, e.g. ['en', 'es']."
    • changedInput schema / properties / markets / description
      Previous value: -"Regions where the app has users. Defaults to [eu]."New value: +"Regions where the app has users; each market pack cites its own frameworks: eu → GDPR/ePrivacy, uk → UK GDPR/PECR, us → CCPA/CPRA, ca → PIPEDA, latam → LGPD…; 'global' is NOT a union of the others — it only cites generic OECD international privacy best practices, for users outside every listed market. To cover several specific frameworks, list each market explicitly, e.g. ['eu', 'us', 'latam']. Defaults to [eu]."
  3. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the return shape {claimUrl, code, expiresAt}, states the 7-day link validity, discloses that no state is created until the user confirms, and documents the error case when neither `url` nor `appName` is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that leads with the action and return shape before the mechanics. Dense but nearly every clause carries load; a slight editorial trim of the trailing rationale clause would tighten it further.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the return object, its expiry, the confirmation flow, the follow-up tool, and the input requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and route the user afterward.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: it states the `url` OR `appName` requirement and the error behavior, and traces facts/answers/locales/signals back to scan_project outputs ('pass it through unchanged'), giving provenance the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Create a REAL LexVibe app in the user's account' — and immediately clarifies the scope with '(replaces the YOUR_APP_ID placeholder)'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_claim_status, which it explicitly hands off to.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this whenever no real LEXVIBE_APP_ID is configured.' It also names the exact follow-up path — call get_claim_status with `code` after the user confirms — and states the precondition that creates nothing until confirmation. Nothing about when to reach for this vs. its siblings is left 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