Skip to main content
Glama

tm_add_domain

DestructiveIdempotent

Register a domain for TrafficMorph verification. Receive a verification token along with DNS and HTTP setup instructions.

Instructions

Register a new domain for verification. Returns the VerifiedDomainResponse record carrying a single verificationToken plus pre-formatted setup instructions for both verification methods.

Verification is required before TrafficMorph will run traffic against the domain — it's the gate that prevents arbitrary abuse-as-a-service. Two verification methods are offered; the same token is used for both — pick whichever method is easier to set up:

  • DNS — install the token as a TXT record at _trafficmorph-verify.<domain>. Best for users who control DNS. Use :func:tm_verify_domain_dns after the record propagates.

  • HTTP — serve the token at https://<domain>/.well-known/trafficmorph-verify.txt. Best when DNS access is restricted. Use :func:tm_verify_domain_http once the file is live.

Response shape::

{
    "id": 7,
    "domain": "api.example.com",
    "verificationToken": "tm-verify-abc123…",
    "verificationMethod": null,           # set after verification
    "verified": false,
    "verifiedAt": null,
    "createdAt": "2026-05-16T12:00:00Z",
    "dnsInstruction": "Add a TXT record for _trafficmorph-verify.api.example.com with value: tm-verify-abc123…",
    "httpInstruction": "Place a file at https://api.example.com/.well-known/trafficmorph-verify.txt containing: tm-verify-abc123…"
}

The dnsInstruction / httpInstruction strings are pre-formatted by the server for verbatim display — the AI host can read either back to the user without composing the setup steps itself.

Idempotent: calling again with the same domain returns the existing record with the same token (the server treats repeat registrations as no-ops).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: returns a verification token and pre-formatted instructions for two verification methods, explains idempotent behavior, and shows the response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is detailed but well-structured with bullet points, a code block, and clear sections. It front-loads the purpose and is mostly efficient, though some sentences (like the idempotency note) could be more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (verification process, two methods), the description covers purpose, token usage, response shape, and idempotency. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., domain ownership) but provides enough context for an AI agent to understand the workflow.

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?

With only one parameter (domain) and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by showing the domain in the example response and linking it to verification. It clearly implies what the domain string represents, though it does not explicitly reiterate the parameter's meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Register a new domain for verification.' It specifies the verb (register), resource (domain), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tm_delete_domain, tm_verify_domain_dns, and tm_verify_domain_http by positioning this as the prerequisite step.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool: before verification is required, calling it 'the gate that prevents arbitrary abuse-as-a-service.' It also notes idempotency for repeat calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like listing domains.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/trafficmorph-gif/tm-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server