get_domainFull detail for one tracked domain: the domain record, the latest scan with all per-check findings (spf, dmarc, dkim, ptr, mta_sts, tls_rpt, mx_tls, blocklist), recent score history, open/recent alerts, and Google Postmaster stats when connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name as tracked in the account, e.g. example.com. |
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what data is included (e.g., latest scan findings, score history, alerts) and noting that Postmaster stats are included 'when connected'. No contradictions with 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full detail for one tracked domain') followed by a structured enumeration of contents. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary words.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the return contents, making the tool's behavior predictable. Annotations cover safety, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description is complete for a read-only, single-domain detail 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?
The single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema with an example ('exampl.com'), covering 100% of schema fields. The description does not add additional parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool provides 'Full detail for one tracked domain' and enumerates the specific components: domain record, latest scan with per-check findings, score history, alerts, and Postmaster stats. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_domains (which lists domains) and get_scan_job (which focuses on a specific scan).
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 clearly implies use when you need comprehensive detail for a single domain. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternative siblings, but the scope ('one tracked domain') and content specificity provide sufficient context for appropriate selection.
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.
Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some minor overlap exists between get_domain and get_deliverability_score, as well as between list_scans and get_scan_job. However, descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_headers, check_blocklists, get_deliverability_score) with consistent snake_case, making it easy for an agent to predict tool names.
26 tools is slightly above the ideal range but appropriate for a comprehensive email deliverability service covering scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. The count feels justified.
The tool surface covers core deliverability workflows: scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, blocklists, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit add domain tool), but the scan_domain tool covers that use case.