get_dnsGet DNS records for a domain you own. Returns each record with a stable id, plus a zone_version token - pass it to set_dns to detect concurrent zone changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to get DNS records for |
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 that each record has a stable id and that a zone_version token is returned, which is crucial for understanding output stability and concurrency behavior. The phrase 'for a domain you own' also implies an ownership requirement, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.
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, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information: the resource and ownership in the first, return values and relationship to set_dns in the second. No fluff or repetition.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all essentials: what it does, who can use it, what it returns, and how the output can be used downstream. The mention of stable id and zone_version is particularly valuable given the lack of an output schema.
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?
The schema already describes the 'domain' parameter completely, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by indicating the domain must be owned by the user, which is not stated in the schema. This extra constraint helps the agent avoid errors when selecting domains.
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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get DNS records for a domain you own.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_dns (which modifies), dns_check (which verifies external DNS), and get_dnssec (which gets DNSSEC data) by narrowing scope to owned domains and emphasizing the read-only nature of the action.
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 implies a common workflow by mentioning 'pass it to set_dns to detect concurrent zone changes,' which tells the agent when this tool is useful as a precursor to updates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the ownership qualifier ('for a domain you own') sets clear expectations about when it applies.
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.