get_broker_inquiry_stateOwner-agent read path: poll the current, anonymized state of a broker inquiry with your token before acting. Returns the domain, the buyer's offer on the table, whose move it is, and the actions available now. Never exposes the buyer's identity or budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The outreach token from your inquiry email |
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 must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool is a read-only 'poll' and includes a privacy guarantee ('Never exposes the buyer's identity or budget'), which is valuable beyond typical read operations. It doesn't detail error cases or idempotency, but these are less critical for a read tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the essential 'Owner-agent read path' label, and no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and return fields; the second sets privacy expectations.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned information (domain, offer, whose move, available actions) and what is deliberately withheld (identity, budget). For a single-parameter read tool with strong schema coverage, this is complete.
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 the token parameter is well-described in the schema. The description's mention of 'your token' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'outreach token from your inquiry email.' 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 states a clear verb+resource+scope: 'poll the current, anonymized state of a broker inquiry.' It distinguishes itself from sibling write tools (e.g., respond_to_broker_inquiry) and listing tools (list_broker_requests) by explicitly labeling it as the 'Owner-agent read path.'
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?
It provides the context of use ('before acting') and identifies the audience (owner-agent). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the phrase 'before acting' implies using this to gather state prior to operations, which is clear enough.
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.