get_parking_analyticsGet visitor analytics for a parked domain - page views, inquiries, conversion rate, 30-day daily breakdown, and the 5 most recent inquiries. Use this to check how much traffic a parked domain gets and whether it's converting into buyer inquiries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to get analytics for, e.g. example.com |
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 of disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only analytics operation and details the output components, which is transparent enough for the simple read context. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., domain must be parked) or possible error states, but the behavior is otherwise clear.
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 long, with the first listing the tool's output and the second giving the practical use case. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies exactly what data the agent will receive, which is sufficient for an analytics retrieval tool. No further context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, which already has a clear example. The description adds the qualifier 'parked domain,' providing slight extra context, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter effectively.
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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('visitor analytics for a parked domain'), and enumerates the exact data returned (page views, inquiries, conversion rate, daily breakdown, recent inquiries). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on analytics, not domain management or DNS.
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 a clear use case: 'check how much traffic a parked domain gets and whether it's converting into buyer inquiries.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. That prevents 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.