Skip to main content
Glama

Add sending domain

create_sending_domain

Add a domain to send from at the project's provider, and get the DNS records the user must add at their DNS host. Verification follows once the records are live; check_sending_domain asks the provider again. Needs a connected sender.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "create_sending_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the domain is registered at the project's provider, DNS records are returned for the user to add, and verification is asynchronous. It does not cover failure modes or duplicate-domain behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, then the verification path and prerequisite. No filler, though the prerequisite could be placed earlier for faster scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned (DNS records) and what happens next (verification via check_sending_domain). The main gap is the unexplained project_id parameter, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies the 'domain' argument is the domain to send from, but never explains 'project_id' or clarifies the domain format/validation beyond what the regex already enforces.

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 ('Add a domain to send from at the project's provider') plus the side effect of returning DNS records. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_sending_domain and list_sending_domains.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Needs a connected sender') and routes the agent to check_sending_domain for verification, which is the natural follow-up. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources