Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Finalize Negotiation

finalize_negotiation

As the buyer, pay the agreed price to create the escrow deal and start the transfer. Same payment methods as a purchase (card, USDC, x402). Requires domains:transfer scope. For a broker-sourced acquisition, if the agreed price is above the max_budget you set, this returns BUDGET_EXCEEDED - retry with confirm_over_budget: true to proceed anyway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
negotiation_idYesThe agreed negotiation to finalize
payment_methodNo
confirm_over_budgetNoSet true to finalize a broker deal above the max_budget you set on the acquisition request

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_over_budget
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to finalize a broker deal above the max_budget you set on the acquisition request",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the required domains:transfer scope, the BUDGET_EXCEEDED return and retry behavior, and that the operation creates an escrow deal and starts the transfer. It does not mention other failure modes or whether finalization is irreversible, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope and an edge case. Each sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the primary action, required scope, and a specific error/retry path. It does not describe the success response format or other potential errors, but the essential information for invocation is present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds useful context for confirm_over_budget (the BUDGET_EXCEEDED flow) and for payment_method by claiming the same methods as purchase (card, USDC, x402). However, the schema enum lists 'balance' instead of 'x402', creating a discrepancy. negotiation_id and payment_method still rely mostly on schema descriptions, and with 67% coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool's function: the buyer pays the agreed price to create an escrow deal and start the transfer. It uses specific verbs like 'pay', 'create', and 'start', and distinguishes this from sibling negotiation tools like make_offer and respond_to_offer by focusing on finalization.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: as the buyer finalizing an agreed negotiation. It also explains the special over-budget flow for broker-sourced acquisitions and the retry with confirm_over_budget, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases beyond the budget scenario.

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