Skip to main content
Glama
usegranthq

UseGrant MCP Server

Official
by usegranthq

verify_domain

Check and confirm domain ownership for a provider using the specified domain and provider IDs through the UseGrant MCP Server.

Instructions

Verify a domain for a provider

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainIdYesThe ID of the domain
providerIdYesThe ID of the provider

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'verify_domain' tool. It takes providerId and domainId, calls usegrant.verifyDomain, and returns a JSON-formatted response.
    async ({ providerId, domainId }) => {
      const domain = await usegrant.verifyDomain(providerId, domainId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(domain, null, 2) }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for the 'verify_domain' tool, defining providerId and domainId using schemas from UseGrant SDK.
    {
      providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
      domainId: UgSchema.DomainIdSchema,
    },
  • src/index.ts:182-195 (registration)
    Registration of the 'verify_domain' tool on the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
      'verify_domain',
      'Verify a domain for a provider',
      {
        providerId: UgSchema.ProviderIdSchema,
        domainId: UgSchema.DomainIdSchema,
      },
      async ({ providerId, domainId }) => {
        const domain = await usegrant.verifyDomain(providerId, domainId);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(domain, null, 2) }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'verify' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what verification entails (e.g., DNS checks, email confirmation), whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like updating domain status. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('verify a domain for a provider'), making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the complexity of a verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what verification does, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow with siblings like 'add_domain'. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'domainId' and 'providerId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between domain and provider or what constitutes valid IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 description clearly states the action ('verify') and the resource ('a domain for a provider'), which is specific and meaningful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domain' or 'add_domain', which might have overlapping contexts but different purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., domain must be added first), timing (e.g., after adding a domain), or contrast with tools like 'get_domain' (which might retrieve status without verification).

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

Related 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/usegranthq/mcp-server'

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