get_nameserversGet the authoritative nameservers configured for a domain you own. If empty, DNS operations (parking, email, connect) will fail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to get nameservers 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, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns the authoritative nameservers and that an empty result indicates a serious issue that will break downstream DNS operations. This adds meaningful context beyond the basic 'get nameservers' phrase, though it omits specifics about return format and error cases for invalid or non-owned domains.
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 short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second provides a valuable caveat about empty results. No words are wasted, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, ownership prerequisite, and the significance of an empty result. It doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., array vs. string), but the low complexity and clear intent make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 documents the only parameter 'domain' with a clear description. The tool description adds 'a domain you own' which is a prerequisite rather than parameter syntax or formatting. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter-level detail is needed.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'authoritative nameservers configured for a domain you own.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dns (which likely returns all DNS records) and set_nameservers (which modifies them). It also specifies ownership scope ('a domain you own'), which further clarifies its purpose.
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 'for a domain you own' signals a prerequisite for use, and the warning 'If empty, DNS operations (parking, email, connect) will fail' implies when this tool should be used (e.g., before DNS operations to verify nameserver configuration). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as preferring get_dns for full DNS record inspection.
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.