Claim Agent
Developer claims ownership of an existing agent listing.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| contact_email | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior alone. It states the high-level action ('claims ownership') but omits details such as ownership verification, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. The response section only mentions a generic 200 success, adding minimal value.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Responses' section is largely redundant (success is implied by HTTP) and takes space that could have clarified parameters or usage. Still, it is not bloated.
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?
With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. It lacks context on the claim workflow, required inputs, and response interpretation, making it a minimal but incomplete spec.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The purpose of name and message (optional) and the required agent_id and contact_email are left undefined, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
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: a developer claims ownership of an existing agent listing. It uses a specific verb (claims) and resource (agent listing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_agent (new listing) and discover_single_agent.
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 usage context (a developer claiming ownership) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like register_agent or get_agent. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions that differentiate related operations like discovery vs. scanning or mint vs. melt quotes. A few pairs (e.g., list_agents vs. a2a_public_discovery, get_agent vs. discover_single_agent) could cause confusion, but the endpoint paths and descriptions mitigate this.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a descriptive operation prefix followed by the full API path and HTTP method (e.g., list_agents_api_agents_get, create_melt_quote_api_payments_ecash_melt_quote_post). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
With 36 tools, the server is overloaded. Even though it covers multiple domains (directory, trust, discovery, payments), the count exceeds the 25+ threshold and likely should be split into focused sub-servers. The tool set feels sprawling rather than well-scoped.
The core workflows for agent registration, search, trust, A2A discovery, scanning, and ecash payments are well-covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete agent operations and no way to modify agent details post-registration, but these are not critical dead-ends for the platform's purpose.