Skip to main content
Glama
melt-ai

@themelt/mcp-server

by melt-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Request a Melt Scan

melt_request_scan

Submits a Melt scan request after the user explicitly asks to be connected or to book one, routing company and contact details for scheduling follow-up.

Instructions

Submits a request for a Melt scan — the next step after Melt's free Stage-1 Sandbox estimate, moving to a real, log-verified value-leak finding tied to a dollar figure and a source system. Call this only after the user has explicitly asked to be connected with Melt or to book/request a scan — never submit contact details the user hasn't provided themselves. Earlier Melt materials called this a 'Thermal Scan' — same request, current name is just 'a scan' (no fixed 2-week/pricing claim attached anymore).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoAny free-text context from the conversation that would help a Melt rep prep the call — trigger event, tech stack, urgency.
companyNoThe prospect's company name. Needed to route the request — if omitted, the tool asks for it instead of failing schema validation.
contactNameNoName of the requester, if known.
contactEmailNoBusiness email of the requester, for scan scheduling follow-up. Needed to route the request — if omitted, the tool asks for it instead of failing schema validation.
departmentsOfInterestNoDepartments the requester wants scanned first, if they expressed a preference.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / company / description
      Previous value: -"The prospect's company name. Required."New value: +"The prospect's company name. Needed to route the request — if omitted, the tool asks for it instead of failing schema validation."
    • changedInput schema / properties / contactEmail / description
      Previous value: -"Business email of the requester, for scan scheduling follow-up. Required."New value: +"Business email of the requester, for scan scheduling follow-up. Needed to route the request — if omitted, the tool asks for it instead of failing schema validation."
    • changedInput schema / properties / departmentsOfInterest / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "Operations",
-  "Finance",
-  "Engineering",
-  "Legal",
-  "GBS",
-  "Sales",
-  "HR",
-  "Marketing",
-  "Product"
-]New value: +[
+  "Operations",
+  "Finance",
+  "Engineering",
+  "Legal",
+  "GBS",
+  "Sales",
+  "HR",
+  "Marketing",
+  "Product",
+  "Customer Success"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully: it discloses that this sends user contact data to Melt for rep follow-up and that consent must be user-initiated, plus clarifies naming history ('Thermal Scan') and that no fixed 2-week/pricing claim attaches. It still omits what happens after submission (confirmation, SLA, idempotency), so it falls short of a 5.

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-loads purpose, then constraints, then legacy naming context — a sensible ordering with no filler. The parenthetical about the old 'Thermal Scan' name is useful disambiguation but slightly tangential, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent preconditions and downstream meaning well. Return/confirmation behavior is left unspecified, but the core invocation guidance is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (notes, company, contactName, contactEmail, departmentsOfInterest), setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only the consent rule about contact details, not syntax or format beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits a request for a Melt scan') and immediately positions it relative to siblings by naming the Stage-1 Sandbox estimate as the prior step. An agent can distinguish this from melt_estimate_annual_leak and melt_analyze_value_vectors without opening any schema.

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 precondition ('only after the user has explicitly asked to be connected with Melt or to book/request a scan') and an explicit prohibition ('never submit contact details the user hasn't provided themselves'). This is unusually strong when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, including who must initiate.

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