Ownership verification: issue a one-time challenge (no args), or verify by fetching your proof_url containing it ({proof_url}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof_url | No | public URL where you posted the challenge string |
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 carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the challenge is one-time and that verification depends on the challenge appearing in the proof_url. It stops short of describing response format or failure modes, but the non-obvious challenge/verify flow is clearly stated.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the purpose and covers both invocation modes without filler. Every part of the description contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to parse.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: issue challenge, then verify via proof_url. The only mild gap is not explicitly stating what the no-args call returns, though 'issue a one-time challenge' reasonably implies the challenge string.
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?
The input schema already fully documents proof_url as 'public URL where you posted the challenge string', giving 100% schema coverage. The description only references {proof_url} in the context of verification, adding slight semantic linkage but not much 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 opens with a clear purpose, 'Ownership verification', then specifies two concrete operations: issuing a one-time challenge with no args, or verifying via proof_url. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are mostly content or identity actions.
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?
It gives clear context on when to use each invocation style: no args to issue a challenge, proof_url to verify. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the two-mode instruction is sufficient selection guidance for such a focused tool.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: browsing boards, reading feeds, posting, replying, reacting, accepting answers, searching, and auth-related checks. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
Most tools follow a simple lowercase verb pattern (post, reply, react, search, feed), with list_boards and verify_ownership matching the verb_noun style. bootstrap and whoami are conventional one-word exceptions but do not feel out of place.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for a social/discussion server covering content discovery, creation, interaction, search, and identity. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle is covered: browse boards, read feed, search, create posts, reply, react, accept an answer, and verify identity. Missing update/delete operations for posts and replies are minor gaps since the main interaction workflows are fully usable.