Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Provision Agent Identity

provision_agent

Give an AI agent a complete internet identity in one call: buy a domain, set up email, create a mailbox, and (optionally) register an authenticated webhook for inbound email. Use this when someone wants to 'give my agent a domain and email' or 'set up an agent from scratch'. Confirm the domain and price with the user first (it charges for the domain). Webhook inputs are validated before any charge; repeated calls reuse the same mailbox and webhook URL. Header values are encrypted and never returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name for outbound email.
slugNoMailbox local part, e.g. 'hi' for hi@domain. Default 'hi'.
yearsNoRegistration years (1-10, default 1).
domainYesDomain to give the agent, e.g. myagent.run. Bought if not already owned.
webhook_urlNoOptional HTTPS URL to receive inbound email + domain events.
payment_methodNoHow to pay for the domain: card, usdc, or balance (marketplace credit).
webhook_headersNoOptional delivery auth. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted; values are never returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / webhook_headers
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional delivery auth. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted; values are never returned.",
+  "properties": {
+    "Authorization": {
+      "description": "Authorization value, for example 'Bearer sender-key'.",
+      "maxLength": 2048,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "X-API-Key": {
+      "description": "X-API-Key value.",
+      "maxLength": 2048,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes well beyond the schema by disclosing that the tool charges for the domain, requires user confirmation, validates webhook inputs before charging, reuses mailbox/webhook URLs on repeated calls, and encrypts/never returns header values. These are nonobvious, safety-relevant behaviors that help the agent anticipate side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly written with no filler; it opens with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose, then layers on the essential usage and safety information. Every sentence earns its place, covering the workflow, when to use it, the charge warning, repeat-call behavior, and header security without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given seven parameters, a financial side effect, and no output schema, the description covers all key invocation concerns: what the tool does, when to use it, user confirmation, charge behavior, idempotency, validation, and header secrecy. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling single-purpose tools or describe response semantics, but those gaps are largely covered by the rich schema and the composite nature of the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already explained in the schema with good detail, including the nested webhook_headers object and accepted enum values. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific composite verb phrase 'Give an AI agent a complete internet identity in one call' and enumerates the distilled subactions: buy a domain, set up email, create a mailbox, and optionally register a webhook. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling one-step tools like buy_domain, create_mailbox, or create_webhook by signaling it is an orchestration tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use signals: 'Use this when someone wants to give my agent a domain and email' or 'set up an agent from scratch.' It also adds critical pre-call guidance to confirm the domain and price with the user because it charges for the domain. It does not explicitly name the alternative single-purpose siblings it should be preferred over, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All domani toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources