Verify business legitimacy by domain or name in <2s. Trust score, verdict, evidence. x402-payable.
Verify whether a domain belongs to a real business. Returns a verdict (real/likely_real/uncertain/likely_fake/fake), a 0-100 score, confidence, and underlying signals (WHOIS age, SSL, homepage LLM judgment, contact info, social presence). Costs 5 cents per fresh call; cached results are free for 24h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. "stripe.com" (without https:// or path). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses outputs (verdict, score, confidence, signals), lists specific underlying signals, and explains cost/caching behavior. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only network operation, but that is implicit from 'verify' and 'fresh call.' It also doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but the provided behavioral details are solid.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and cost implications. Every sentence adds value without any filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the verdict scale, score range, confidence, and underlying signals, plus cost and caching. The only minor omission is error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, the description covers essential context sufficiently.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already provides a clear description of the 'domain' parameter with an example and formatting constraint. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Verify whether a domain belongs to a real business.' This is a specific verb-resource pair, and the detailed output list (verdict, score, confidence, signals) reinforces the purpose. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, and the purpose is unambiguous.
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 the tool (to assess domain legitimacy) but doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. It does give practical usage context, such as 'Costs 5 cents per fresh call; cached results are free for 24h,' which helps the agent decide on repeated calls. This is clear context but lacks exclusions.
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.
check_businessClaiming 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!
European business verification for AI agents: registry, VAT, sanctions, IBAN. Pay-per-call x402.
Search and verify 360K+ business entities with trust scores and W3C credentials.
Email, phone, domain, URL & OFAC verification; phishing and IBAN checks via x402.
Trust layer for the x402 economy - check any service before you pay. Scores, discovery, routing.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of overlap or confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
The single tool name 'check_business' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, making it predictable and descriptive.
The server has a narrow, single-purpose scope (business validation), and one well-designed tool is entirely appropriate. The count is well-scoped for the intended use case.
The single tool provides a comprehensive verdict with score, confidence, and underlying signals, fully covering the domain of business verification. No additional operations are necessary for the stated purpose.
