domains.verifyTrigger DNS verification (TXT + MX) of a registered domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domainId | Yes | Domain ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Domain ID | |
| name | Yes | Domain name | |
| status | Yes | DNS verification status | |
| mxTarget | No | MX target to add to the domain's DNS before verification | |
| txtToken | No | TXT token to add to the domain's DNS before verification | |
| createdAt | No | Creation timestamp (RFC 3339) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the verification checks TXT and MX records and by limiting the action to registered domains. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value: it names the action, the resource, the verification method, and the required state of the domain.
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 action with an output schema and annotations present, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether verification is asynchronous or requires DNS records to be configured first, but these are not critical to invoking the tool correctly.
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 the schema already documents the domainId parameter. The description adds the contextual detail that the domain must be registered, but it does not materially expand the meaning of the parameter itself.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it triggers DNS verification for a domain, and specifies the verification records (TXT + MX). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains.register, domains.list, and domains.delete.
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 phrase 'of a registered domain' implies it should be called after registration, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, whether DNS records must already be set, or how to confirm verification status. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.