Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Squish

by co.squish
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Setup domain forwarding

setup_domain_forwarding
Destructive

Configure URL forwarding so visits to the domain (and its www) redirect to a target URL. Useful for "point foo.com at my main site" requests. Redirects are served from our edge network, which means the domain has to be delegated to Squish nameservers. Two-step usage REQUIRED: (1) call with confirm:false to preview, describe to user; (2) ONLY after explicit yes, call with confirm:true. If the preview comes back with nameserverChangeRequired:true you MUST relay that the domain's nameservers would move to us and that DNS records at its current DNS host — email/MX included — stop working until they are recreated here — and that this particular change cannot be made from chat: direct the customer to the dashboard's DNS settings for that domain, where they review and confirm the nameserver move themselves. A domain that receives email should be moved with a DNS migration instead. All forwarding is a standard (302) redirect — cloaked/framed forwarding is not offered; if asked, say so rather than promising it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "setup_domain_forwarding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to forward (e.g. "foo.com").
targetYesTarget URL — must include http:// or https://.
confirmNofalse (default) returns preview; true applies. Pass true ONLY after explicit user confirmation.
acknowledgeNameserverChangeNoRetained for compatibility; it no longer authorises anything. A forwarding setup that requires moving nameservers is refused from chat regardless of this flag and must be done from the dashboard, because consent for a nameserver move has to come from the customer's own click, not from a model argument.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that redirects are served from the edge and require nameserver delegation, that moving nameservers breaks existing DNS records including email/MX until recreated, and that such a change is refused from chat regardless of arguments and must be confirmed by the customer in the dashboard. It also discloses the redirect type (standard 302, no cloaking). This is far richer than the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint flags alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then the hard requirement, then the failure-mode instructions, which suits a destructive tool. It is dense but slightly overlong, with some restatement of the confirm flow that the schema already documents.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (nameserver delegation), the consent protocol, the collateral damage (email/MX), the escalation path (dashboard DNS settings), and the unsupported variant (cloaked forwarding). Nothing an agent needs to call or refuse correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds procedural meaning by framing confirm:false as a preview that must be described to the user and confirm:true as gated on an explicit yes. The acknowledgeNameserverChange semantics are already spelled out in the schema, so the description only reinforces rather than extends them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure URL forwarding so visits to the domain (and its www) redirect to a target URL') and grounds it in a concrete user intent ('point foo.com at my main site'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling DNS tools like create_dns_record or trace_redirects.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly prescribes a two-step flow (confirm:false preview first, confirm:true only after explicit yes) and names the correct alternative path: domains that receive email 'should be moved with a DNS migration instead'. It also states a when-not case for cloaked/framed forwarding, telling the agent to decline rather than promise it.

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

All Squish toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources