remove_domainStop monitoring a domain and delete it (and its scan history) from the account. DESTRUCTIVE and not reversible. Requires an owner/admin API key with write or full scope. (To ADD a domain, run scan_domain with this API key — authenticated scans auto-track the domain.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name 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?
The description adds important behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it is 'DESTRUCTIVE and not reversible' and deletes the domain's scan history. It also discloses authentication scope requirements. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.
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 compact yet information-dense, covering the action, side effects, irreversibility, permissions, and alternative in two sentences. Every clause contributes meaningful 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?
For a simple destructive tool, the description covers all critical aspects: the action, irreversible nature, deleted data, required permissions, and the alternative for adding domains. With only one parameter and no output schema, nothing essential is missing.
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 sole parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema with an example and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Stop monitoring a domain and delete it (and its scan history)' with a specific resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_domain, which the description explicitly contrasts for adding domains.
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?
It explicitly instructs when to use scan_domain instead for adding domains, providing an alternative. It also states the required API key permissions (owner/admin with write/full scope), clarifying prerequisites. This goes beyond vague context to actionable guidance.
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.