snooze
Server Details
Check a domain's registration status, or watch it for expiry, deletion, and availability.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: check_domain looks up registration data, while watch_domain adds a domain to a monitoring watchlist. There is no ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_domain, watch_domain). This naming convention is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the surface is thin. For a domain monitoring server, one would expect additional tools for managing the watchlist, such as listing watched domains or removing a watch. While minimal, it still provides a focused core functionality.
The server lacks essential operations for managing the watchlist: there is no tool to list currently watched domains, remove a domain from the watchlist, or update watch settings. This creates significant gaps that could cause agent failures.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_domainCheck domain statusARead-onlyInspect
Look up the registration status of a domain name: whether it is taken, expiring, in deletion, or available to register. Returns status, expiry date, and registrar. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check, e.g. "example.com" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by stating 'No authentication required' and explaining the returned data (status, expiry date, registrar), which goes beyond the basic annotation.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information.
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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, read-only, no auth), the description covers the essential aspects. However, it could explicitly mention that no output schema is provided, but it's minor.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides an example value ('example.com') for the domain parameter, adding helpful context beyond the schema description.
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 'Look up' and the resource 'registration status of a domain name', and lists specific statuses (taken, expiring, in deletion, available) and return fields (status, expiry date, registrar). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'watch_domain' which likely monitors for changes.
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 mentions no authentication required, implying public use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'watch_domain'. Providing a comparison or guideline would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
watch_domainWatch domainAIdempotentInspect
Add a domain to your snooze watchlist. The domain is monitored continuously and you get an email when its status changes or expiry approaches. Requires signing in to your snooze account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to watch, e.g. "example.com" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: continuous monitoring, email notifications, and authentication requirement. However, it does not address idempotency behavior (what happens if domain already watched) or specify non-destructive nature beyond annotation.
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?
Two sentences, no filler words. Front-loaded with the action, followed by key behavioral details. Efficient and clear.
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 one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and prerequisite. Missing details on idempotency or duplicate handling, but overall sufficient for an agent to select and use the 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the 'domain' parameter beyond the schema example. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Add a domain to your snooze watchlist') and the resource (domain). It distinguishes from sibling 'check_domain' by emphasizing continuous monitoring and email alerts.
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?
Description mentions the prerequisite of signing in, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative (check_domain for one-time checks). Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!