Add a customer sending domain. Generates DKIM keys and returns the 4 DNS records the customer needs to add. Works like SendGrid domain authentication — self-hosted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Customer domain (e.g. company.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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses concrete behaviors: generates DKIM keys and returns the 4 DNS records the customer must add. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or prerequisites, but for a simple add operation this is reasonably transparent.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful context, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and output (DNS records). It could mention prerequisites (e.g., domain uniqueness) or verification steps, but overall it is adequately complete for such a simple operation.
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 schema already fully describes the parameter 'domain' with an example (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 starts with a clear verb 'Add' and resource 'customer sending domain', making the action unambiguous. It also mentions generating DKIM keys and returning DNS records, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_sending_domains or remove_sending_domain.
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 implies usage for adding sending domains, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The 'self-hosted' comparison to SendGrid provides some context but no clear exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
