Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
StealthMark MCP Server

StealthMark MCP Server

Official
by stealthmark-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gateway_invoke

Invoke a website-declared action from its agent manifest through the StealthMark API, passing the target domain, action ID, and required parameters.

Instructions

Invoke an action a site declares in its agent manifest, through the StealthMark API.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "action_id": "<action_id>",
      "parameters": "<parameters>"
    },
    "name": "gateway_invoke"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesTarget domain hosting the action
action_idYesAction slug from the site's agent manifest (see gateway_resolve)
parametersYesParameters matching the action's inputSchema in the agent manifest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, rate limits, or what an error looks like. For a tool that executes arbitrary declared actions on a remote domain, that omission is significant.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the name. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested `parameters` object validated against a remote inputSchema, the agent needs guidance the description does not give — notably that the action and its parameter shape must be obtained from gateway_resolve first. The definition is too thin for a generic execution gateway.

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%, with all three parameters individually described, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds no additional meaning about how `parameters` should be shaped or sourced beyond the manifest.

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 sentence pairs a concrete verb ('Invoke') with a specific resource ('an action a site declares in its agent manifest') and names the backing service (StealthMark API). It does not explicitly contrast with gateway_resolve, but the manifest-based framing makes the purpose distinguishable from a resolve/discovery call.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite that the action must first be resolved via gateway_resolve, and no mention of failure modes if the action_id is unknown. The only pointer to a sibling lives in the schema, not the description.

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