clear_catch_allRemove the catch-all on a domain. Email to unmatched addresses will be dropped again. API: DELETE /api/domains/{domain}/email/catch-all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to clear the catch-all on |
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect: email to unmatched addresses will be dropped again, and specifies the DELETE API endpoint. This goes beyond a simple 'remove' statement. However, it does not mention error behavior or idempotency, but for a straightforward removal tool, this is adequate.
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 primary action, and includes only essential details: the action, the consequence, and the API endpoint. No wasted 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?
For a single-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what happens (removal) and the effect (dropped emails), plus the API endpoint. It doesn't discuss reversibility, but that is covered by the existence of the counterpart 'set_catch_all'. The complexity is low, and the description suffices.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, with the schema already describing it as 'Domain to clear the catch-all on'. The description mentions the API path containing the domain, but adds no further semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 begins with 'Remove the catch-all on a domain', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_catch_all' by indicating removal rather than creation. The API endpoint further reinforces the exact operation.
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 indicates when to use the tool: when you want to remove the catch-all. The consequence ('Email to unmatched addresses will be dropped again') implies the context. It does not explicitly name the alternative 'set_catch_all', but the inverse relationship is evident from the sibling tools, providing adequate 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.
While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.
With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.
The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.