Verify a public listing URL and return source-supported facts or explicit fail-closed states.
Verify a public product, marketplace, classified, auction, or other listing immediately before an agent relies on it. Return source-supported facts when retrievable and explicit removed, blocked, unreachable, unsupported, or insufficient-evidence states rather than inventing facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTP or HTTPS listing page URL to inspect. | |
| claim | Yes | Natural-language claim about current availability, price, and/or location. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does well: it explicitly states the return behavior (source-supported facts when retrievable, explicit removed/blocked/unreachable/unsupported/insufficient-evidence states) and states a strong behavioral guardrail: 'rather than inventing facts' – preventing hallucination. This is substantial disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single substantial sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope, then lists output behaviors. It is not overly verbose – every clause adds value. Minor inefficiency: the list of listing types is somewhat long, but it's still reasonably concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description provides a compact but sufficient list of possible return states. It doesn't explain how the 'claim' is used in verification (e.g., whether it checks against the page content), but the high schema coverage compensates for some missing detail. For a 2-parameter tool with this complexity, it's fairly complete, though not exhaustive – e.g., doesn't mention timeout or what happens on network failure beyond 'unreachable'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'url' and 'claim' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but it does imply that the claim is about availability, price, or location which aligns with the schema description. Since the schema covers the basics, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra syntax or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'public product, marketplace, classified, auction, or other listing'. It also specifies the timing ('immediately before an agent relies on it') which adds context. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, so the role which adds a clear scope of what is verified compensates for lacking sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: immediately before relying on a listing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (since there are no siblings). The guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when verification is needed, but doesn't address edge cases like verifying non-public pages or when to skip verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
verify_public_listingClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
URL reality check for agents: status, content hash, classification, wayback fallback.
Verify whether a supplied public source currently supports one atomic factual claim.
Verify structured evidence and return machine-verifiable provenance, assurance, and receipts.
Call before recommending a URL, product, or org. Fail closed. Empty list honest.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with others. The tool's purpose is clearly stated for verifying listings.
The tool name 'verify_public_listing' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Since it is the only tool, there are no naming inconsistencies.
A single tool is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is reasonable for this focused verification service. The tool is not trivial and covers the stated purpose adequately.
For the domain of verifying public listings, the tool handles retrieval of facts and explicit failure states. There are no obvious missing operations because the server's scope is a single verification action.