Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Connect Domain

connect_domain

Connect a domain to a hosting or email provider. Auto-detects provider from target, or accepts explicit provider name. For domains bought through the platform, DNS records are set automatically (status: dns_set). For imported domains (external registrar), returns the records as instructions to add manually (status: manual_setup_required). If the connect would REPLACE existing MX records pointing at another provider, it fails with MX_REPLACEMENT_REQUIRES_CONFIRMATION - preview with dry_run, confirm with the user, then retry with confirm_replace_mx. The response includes a next_steps array with provider-specific actions. Supported hosting: vercel, netlify, cloudflare-pages, github-pages, railway, fly. Email: google-workspace, fastmail, proton.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to connect, e.g. mysite.com
methodNoConnection method if provider has multiple, e.g. cname-only
targetNoTarget URL for auto-detection, e.g. my-app.vercel.app
dry_runNoPreview only - returns the diff (create/replace/keep) without writing
providerNoExplicit provider name, e.g. vercel, google-workspace
confirm_replace_mxNoConfirm replacing existing MX records that point at another provider (moves the domain's email)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_replace_mx
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Confirm replacing existing MX records that point at another provider (moves the domain's email)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Preview only - returns the diff (create/replace/keep) without writing",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses automatic DNS setup for platform domains, manual instruction generation for imported domains, the specific MX_REPLACEMENT_REQUIRES_CONFIRMATION failure mode, and the presence of a next_steps array. This is far beyond what annotations would typically provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence earns its place. It covers auto-detection, two status paths, the MX conflict resolution, next_steps, and provider lists without any fluff. The structure is logical and compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is highly complete: it explains the main behavior, domain provenance variants, a tricky edge case, and hints at the output shape (next_steps). It doesn't fully elaborate on the method parameter or the complete response object, but these are minor gaps for an otherwise thorough description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it links target to auto-detection, explains dry_run as a preview, and relates confirm_replace_mx to replacing MX records. It also enumerates valid provider values, giving the provider parameter richer semantics than the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Connect a domain to a hosting or email provider.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing auto-detection, platform vs imported domain handling, and listing supported providers (vercel, google-workspace, etc.), making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: auto-detect provider from target or pass explicit provider, and it gives a concrete workflow for the MX replacement edge case (use dry_run, confirm with user, retry with confirm_replace_mx). It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficiently actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All domani toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources