Search 2,972 premium domains for sale, inspect current asking prices and buyer paths, and submit purchase offers directly to the seller.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getting a specific domain's price, listing clearance domains, submitting an offer, and searching the portfolio. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_domain, list_clearance_domains, make_offer, search_domains), making the set predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain sales purpose. Each tool covers a necessary operation without being too few or excessive.
The tool set covers the core workflow: searching, getting details, listing clearance items, and making offers. Missing actions like viewing offer history or canceling offers are minor and do not severely hinder functionality.
get_domainAInspectGet the current asking price and buyer paths for an exact domain in the live sale catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states 'Get' implying read-only, and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are common for a lookup tool.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and outputs. No wasted words.
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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on what it does and what it returns. It could mention error handling or non-existence, but overall is adequate.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'domain' is 'exact domain' in the live sale catalog, but does not specify format or validation rules. This is partially helpful but not fully compensating for missing schema descriptions.
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 'Get', the resource 'exact domain', and what is returned ('current asking price and buyer paths'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_clearance_domains and search_domains by specifying exact domain lookup.
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 for a single exact domain in the live sale catalog, which distinguishes it from search and list tools. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_clearance_domainsBInspectList time-sensitive renewal-clearance domains by maximum price, category, or TLD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| max_price_usd | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'time-sensitive' but does not explain what renewal-clearance means, result format, or if read-only.
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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates core function.
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?
Lacks details on output, behavior, and meaning of 'renewal-clearance'. Incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema.
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 0%; description covers 3 of 4 parameters (tld, category, max_price_usd) but misses 'limit'. Provides context for filtering but not complete.
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?
Clearly states it lists time-sensitive renewal-clearance domains with filters by max price, category, or TLD. Distinct from siblings like search_domains and get_domain.
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?
Implies usage via filters but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use. No guidance on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
make_offerBInspectSubmit a genuine USD offer for a saleable domain. The seller receives it through the live offer pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| contact | Yes | Buyer email or other reply address. | |
| message | No | ||
| price_usd | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the offer goes through a 'live offer pipeline' but lacks details on authentication requirements, whether the action is destructive, rate limits, or confirmation steps.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase contributes value without redundancy.
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?
Despite having four parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, prerequisites, or behavior after submission, making it incomplete for an action tool.
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 description does not add semantic meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Only one of four parameters (contact) has description coverage. For domain, price_usd, and message, no additional guidance is given on formatting or constraints.
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 action ('Submit a genuine USD offer') and the resource ('a saleable domain'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which are retrieval-focused (get_domain, list_clearance_domains, search_domains).
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 when a user wants to submit an offer for a saleable domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_domainsBInspectSearch the live FlipDomain.ai portfolio by keyword, category, TLD, collection, and price. Returns saleable domains only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | No | TLD such as .com, .ai, or io. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Words or fragments to match in the domain or category. | |
| category | No | ||
| collection | No | ||
| max_price_usd | No | ||
| min_price_usd | No | ||
| clearance_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that returned results are limited to 'saleable domains only', which is a behavioral filter. However, it omits other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'saleable' means. Minimal depth.
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?
Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose and key detail about saleable domains. No wasted words.
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 8 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is brief. It covers basic purpose and filter criteria but misses behavioral context, return format, and processing details. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 only 25% (2 of 8 params documented). The description lists five filter criteria (keyword, category, TLD, collection, price) but does not explain the interaction between min/max price or other params like limit, clearance_only. It adds marginal meaning 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 it searches the FlipDomain.ai portfolio by multiple criteria (keyword, category, TLD, collection, price) and returns only saleable domains. This distinguishes it from siblings: get_domain (single domain), list_clearance_domains (clearance only), make_offer (making offers).
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 this is for general searching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_domain for details or list_clearance_domains for clearance items. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!
