get_email_deliverabilityGet an owner-scoped email health report for a domain. Separates deterministic DNS readiness, 30-day bounce and complaint outcomes, account safety state, and measured inbox placement. A readiness score is not an Inbox probability. API: GET /api/domains/{domain}/email/deliverability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the owner-scoped restriction and clarifies that the readiness score is not an inbox probability, which are meaningful behavioral cues. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential errors, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond ownership. The provided context is useful but incomplete.
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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, lists components, provides a caveat, and includes the API path. Each sentence adds value, though the API path is an implementation detail that may be slightly extraneous for an AI agent. No clutter, but not as lean as a two-sentence example.
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 there is no output schema, the description does a decent job of outlining the content of the report (DNS readiness, bounce/complaint outcomes, account safety, inbox placement). It also clarifies the interpretation of the readiness score. The main gap is the exact response format or field names, but for a single-parameter tool, the description is fairly 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?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'domain'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, except indirectly indicating that the domain must be owner-scoped. This matches the baseline of 3, where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 an 'owner-scoped email health report for a domain' with specific breakdown components (DNS readiness, bounce/complaint outcomes, account safety, inbox placement). The verb 'Get' and resource 'email health report' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like check_email_deliverability by describing a comprehensive report rather than a simple check.
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 usage context: it is for domains you own ('owner-scoped') and gives a detailed health report. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusion conditions. No sibling tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this should be selected over similar tools like check_email_deliverability.
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.