list_broker_requestsList your domain acquisition requests and their status (sourcing/contacted/negotiating/agreed/no_contact/declined). Requires deals:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status, or 'all' |
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 an authentication requirement ('Requires deals:read scope') and enumerates the possible statuses ('sourcing/contacted/negotiating/agreed/no_contact/declined'), which helps set expectations about the response content. However, it does not mention pagination, default behavior when parameters are omitted, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'List' implies non-mutating.
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 front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the status list and auth requirement. Every piece of information contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource, the status values, and the required scope. Minor gaps include lack of detail on default filtering when no status is provided and no mention of pagination, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation. The description covers the essential context for correct invocation.
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 covers the single parameter 'status' with 'Filter by status, or 'all'', but the description adds the full list of allowed statuses (sourcing/contacted/negotiating/agreed/no_contact/declined), which the schema does not include. This extra context significantly enhances parameter understanding, beyond the 100% schema coverage baseline.
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 ('List') with a clear resource ('your domain acquisition requests') and explicitly states the scope ('their status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_negotiations or get_broker_inquiry_state, which focus on different or singular aspects. The wording is unambiguous and directly states what the tool returns.
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: use this tool to list your own acquisition requests. It mentions the required scope (deals:read), which is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
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.