Tear down an active domain-verification window: restore MX (snapshot or supplied real_mx_target), remove the per-domain forwarder. Stops the receiver if no other windows remain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to tear down | |
| real_mx_target | No | Optional final MX target (e.g. apple.com). Overrides the snapshot restore. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behaviors: restoring MX via snapshot or real_mx_target, removing the forwarder, and conditionally stopping the receiver. It omits permission/error details but is reasonably transparent for the tool's complexity.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. It avoids fluff and is very efficient.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the core behavior, parameter implications, and a side effect. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though it could mention what the tool returns or prerequisites.
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% and both parameters have descriptive definitions. The description adds slight reinforcement (e.g., 'supplied real_mx_target' referencing the override) but does not go beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('tear down') and resource ('domain-verification window'), and details the key actions (restore MX, remove forwarder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_domain_verification and get_domain_verification_status.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to tear down an active verification window) and includes a conditional note about stopping the receiver when no other windows remain. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling context makes it obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
