Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@opensmm/mcp-server

@opensmm/mcp-server

Official
by opensmm-protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Register an execution provider

register_provider
Idempotent

Self-register a provider node on the gateway using a public HTTPS endpoint and API key; the gateway healthchecks the API and syncs offers into the catalog.

Instructions

Self-register a provider node on this gateway (spec/v0 §10). The endpoint must be a public https URL (SSRF guard); the gateway healthchecks the API by listing its offers, then syncs them into the catalog. The apiKey is used only to call the provider and is never returned. Re-registering the same endpoint returns the existing node.

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": {
      "adapter": "<adapter>",
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>",
      "apiKey": "<apiKey>"
    },
    "name": "register_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyYesProvider-side credential; never returned by the API
adapterYesAPI dialect of the provider: classic key+action panel API or reseller-style REST v1
profileNosmm-v2 only: behavior profile (default 'standard')
endpointYesPublic https base URL of the provider API
displayNameNoPublic name, shown only with publiclyListed=true
payoutAddressNoDirect-settlement payTo address for this provider's orders
publiclyListedNoOpt in to publishing displayName

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) the description discloses real side effects: the gateway healthchecks the provider by listing offers, then syncs them into the catalog, and re-registering the same endpoint returns the existing node. It also states apiKey handling (used only for calls, never returned), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Four sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact: identity, endpoint constraint, healthcheck/sync behavior, and credential handling. Nothing is repeated from structured fields and no sentence is filler.

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 mutating 7-param tool with no output schema, it covers the important unknowns — side effects, idempotency, credential lifetime, SSRF restriction. The remaining gap is what a successful first registration returns (node identifier/shape) versus the re-registration case, which it only partially implies.

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 structured fields already define all seven params; the description adds value on top by constraining the endpoint to public https (SSRF guard) and reiterating apiKey secrecy. It leaves adapter/profile/publiclyListed semantics entirely to the schema, so it improves on the baseline rather than fully replacing it.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Self-register a provider node on this gateway' — and ties it to a spec section. No sibling tool does anything comparable (the rest are list/get/order operations), so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It supplies the key precondition (endpoint must be a public https URL, enforced by an SSRF guard) and clarifies the re-registration path, but it never states when *not* to register or what to do afterwards (e.g., check with list_providers). Clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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