get_dnssecList the DNSSEC delegation-signer (DS) records for a domain you own, and whether DNSSEC is enabled. Pair with TLSA records (via set_dns) for DANE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to inspect |
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' and read-only nature are clear, and the 'domain you own' constraint is disclosed. However, it does not mention what happens if the domain is not owned, whether an empty result is returned if DNSSEC is disabled, or any authorization requirements. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the action ('List'), and every phrase adds value. It includes a cross-reference to set_dns without extra fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 read operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (DS records, DNSSEC status), and the ownership prerequisite. It also provides broader context (DANE integration), making it complete for its complexity.
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%, with the 'domain' parameter described as 'Domain name to inspect'. The description adds the ownership requirement ('a domain you own') and specifies output content (DS records and enabled status), which goes beyond the schema. This adds meaningful semantic value, though the parameter format is not elaborated.
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 clearly states the tool lists DNSSEC DS records and indicates whether DNSSEC is enabled. The verb 'List' and resource 'DNSSEC delegation-signer (DS) records' are specific, and the scope 'for a domain you own' distinguishes it from siblings like get_dns, add_dnssec, or delete_dnssec.
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 provides clear context: it is for inspecting DS records and DNSSEC status on an owned domain. It also suggests pairing with TLSA records via set_dns for DANE, providing a complementary usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.