make_offerOpen an anonymous price negotiation on a listed domain with an initial offer (below or at the asking price). The seller can counter, accept, or decline. Neither side sees the other's identity. Requires deals:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | Yes | Your initial offer in USD, e.g. 500 | |
| domain | Yes | The listed domain to negotiate on, e.g. premium.com | |
| message | No | Optional message to the seller |
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 key behaviors: the negotiation is anonymous, the offer can be below or at asking price, and the seller can counter, accept, or decline. It also mentions the required scope, which is important for authorization.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, followed by negotiation dynamics and the scope requirement. No redundancy or vagueness.
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?
The description covers the negotiation process, anonymity, and scope requirement. However, since there is no output schema, it does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., a negotiation ID or status). Still, for the tool's complexity, it provides adequate context.
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%, so each parameter is already explained. The description adds the context that this is an 'initial offer' and that the offer is in USD, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 specific action: 'Open an anonymous price negotiation on a listed domain with an initial offer.' It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings such as buy_domain or respond_to_offer by highlighting the negotiation aspect and the anonymity.
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 when to use the tool: when you want to negotiate on a listed domain rather than directly purchase. It also specifies a prerequisite (deals:write scope) and sets expectations with the seller's possible responses. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like buy_domain.
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.