Skip to main content
Glama

MCPDomain

by io.github.danboabes

configure_domain_email

Set up email forwarding for a registered domain. Forward any@domain to Gmail/Outlook. No MX records needed. WHEN TO USE: user just registered a domain, or asks about professional email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesA domain previously registered via register_new_domain, e.g. 'sweetcrumbs.com'.
aliasesNoSpecific forwarding rules instead of a catch-all. Each rule routes one address @domain to one destination inbox.
catch_all_toNoForward ALL emails sent to any address @domain to this inbox (e.g. 'you@gmail.com'). Mutually exclusive with 'aliases' — use one or the other.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It usefully discloses that no MX records are needed and that forwarding targets Gmail/Outlook. However, it does not describe what happens to existing email settings, whether forwarding is additive or replaces existing config, or any side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a labeled WHEN TO USE section. It is front-loaded with the action, wastes no words, and every sentence adds value.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate usage context: it mentions registration prerequisite and the key technical fact about MX records. It does not go into edge cases, but for a setup tool this is sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond the mention of 'any@domain' which loosely aligns with the catch_all_to parameter. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Set up email forwarding') and the resource ('a registered domain'), and specifies the forwarding behavior ('Forward any@domain to Gmail/Outlook'). 'No MX records needed' distinguishes this from the DNS configuration sibling tool.

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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly indicates triggers: after domain registration or when the user asks about professional email. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

All MCPDomain 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain management action: availability checking, registration, suggestions, transfer, DNS config, email config, and status lookup. There is no meaningful overlap, even between check_domain_availability and suggest_available_domains, as the latter focuses on generating alternatives.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (check_, configure_, get_, register_, suggest_, transfer_). The two configure_ tools are clearly grouped by purpose and the rest use specific verbs, making the pattern predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a domain management service. Each tool covers a distinct phase of the domain lifecycle without being either too sparse or overly granular.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the main domain lifecycle: finding, registering, transferring, configuring DNS/email, and monitoring status. Minor gaps exist, such as missing explicit renewal or deletion tools, but agents can work around these for typical scenarios.

Resources