resend_email_verificationResend a verification email for your WHOIS contact email. If the contact email matches your login email, it's already verified. Rate limited to once per 15 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email to verify (defaults to your contact email) |
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 a key behavioral trait: the 15-minute rate limit. It also explains a precondition (already verified if emails match), which helps the agent predict outcomes. This is more transparent than many mutation tools, though it doesn't cover potential errors or authentication requirements.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Each sentence adds value: purpose, a logical condition, and a rate limit. This is highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it's not needed, and a rate limit. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, but the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema make this acceptable. Slightly more detail about the email-sending behavior would push it to a 5.
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 coverage is 100% (the 'email' parameter is described as 'Email to verify (defaults to your contact email)'). The description adds minor semantic context by specifying 'your WHOIS contact email,' but it doesn't significantly enhance the parameter's operational meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action: 'Resend a verification email for your WHOIS contact email.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional context about already-verified emails distinguishes it from generic email-sending tools. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is 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 provides usage context: it indicates when the tool is unnecessary ('If the contact email matches your login email, it's already verified') and notes the rate limit ('Rate limited to once per 15 minutes'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when to use them, leaving a small gap.
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.