import_domainImport an external domain you already own (registered at GoDaddy, Namecheap, Cloudflare, etc.) to manage through domani.run. Free, no transfer needed. Returns a TXT record to add at your DNS provider for ownership verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to import, e.g. mysite.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. It discloses key behaviors: the operation is free, does not require a transfer, and returns a TXT record for DNS verification. However, it does not mention that a follow-up verification step (e.g., verify_import) is required or describe any side effects or limitations, leaving some process ambiguity.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value—ownership context, cost, transfer avoidance, and the TXT record response. No redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the immediate response will be. It misses the tie-in to the sibling verify_import tool, which could create a gap in the overall workflow, but the core usage is sufficiently 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 provides a clear description for the single 'domain' parameter with an example. The tool description adds the context that the domain must be externally owned, but does not add further syntax or formatting details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: importing an external domain the user already owns, with the explicit distinction 'no transfer needed.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like transfer_domain or acquire_domain. The verb 'import' and resource 'external domain' are specific and unambiguous.
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 gives clear usage context: for domains already owned at another registrar, and explicitly excludes transfer by saying 'no transfer needed.' It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over transfer-related 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.