get_domain_infoGet detailed information about a domain you own, including auto-renew status, security lock, WHOIS privacy, and provider data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to get info 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only get operation and enumerates the kind of information returned, which sets expectations. It does not mention error cases or ownership verification, but the 'get' verb and scope make the behavior sufficiently transparent.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action and object, then efficiently lists the notable data points. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the simple input schema and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the ownership requirement, and the kind of fields returned. It does not discuss edge cases or provider-specific behavior, but for a read-only getter this is sufficient. It could be slightly enhanced by stating return format or clarifying what 'provider data' includes.
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 fully describes the single 'domain' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful nuance that the domain must be owned, which is not present in the schema description and helps the agent understand the parameter's semantics more precisely.
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 gets detailed information about a domain, and lists specific data types (auto-renew status, security lock, WHOIS privacy, provider data). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dns or whois_lookup, which focus on narrower or different aspects.
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 phrase 'a domain you own' provides a clear usage context, indicating this is for owned domains. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the ownership qualifier effectively guides the agent away from whois_lookup or other domain inspection tools.
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.