Skip to main content
Glama

BorealHost

by ai.borealhost

domain_settings

Update domain settings (auto-renew, WHOIS privacy, registrar lock).

Only provided (non-None) fields are updated.

Requires: API key with write scope.

Args: domain_name: Full domain name (e.g. "example.com") auto_renew: Enable/disable automatic renewal whois_privacy: Enable/disable WHOIS privacy protection locked: Enable/disable registrar lock (prevents unauthorized transfers)

Returns: {"success": true, "domain": "example.com", "auto_renew": true, "whois_privacy": true, "locked": true}

Errors: NOT_FOUND: Domain not found or not owned by account

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lockedNo
auto_renewNo
domain_nameYes
whois_privacyNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation behavior, partial-update semantics, auth prerequisite, return value format, and a specific error condition. This goes beyond typical tool descriptions.

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?

Description is well-structured with intro, behavior note, requirements, args, returns, and errors. Each section is concise and informative, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete—covering purpose, usage, parameters, return structure, and errors. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear meaning for every parameter: domain_name as full name with example, auto_renew/whois_privacy/locked as enable/disable toggles. It adds value the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states "Update domain settings (auto-renew, WHOIS privacy, registrar lock)" with a specific verb and resource, listing the affected fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_detail (view) or manage_dns (DNS management).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: partial updates ("Only provided (non-None) fields are updated") and auth requirement ("Requires: API key with write scope"). Does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use, but the update-specific context is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All BorealHost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.

Resources