respond_to_offerCounter, accept, or decline the current offer in a negotiation when it's your turn. 'accept' locks the price at the amount on the table; the buyer then finalizes payment. Requires deals:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Your response | |
| counter | No | New amount in USD (required when action=counter) | |
| message | No | ||
| negotiation_id | Yes | The negotiation ID |
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 discloses that accept locks the price and requires deals:write scope, adding meaningful behavior beyond a simple 'responds' statement. It doesn't detail consequences of counter/decline, but conveys key relevant info.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
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 purpose, when to use, a key behavioral consequence, and a permission requirement. It doesn't mention return values or outcomes of counter/decline, but is complete enough for a well-scoped negotiation tool.
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 already describes 3 of 4 parameters; the description adds context about accept's pricing behavior but doesn't explain counter parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't fully compensate for the gap, but overall parameter meaning is clear.
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 specific verbs (counter, accept, decline) and identifies the resource (current offer in a negotiation) and timing ('when it's your turn'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like make_offer and finalize_negotiation.
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 establishes a clear context ('in a negotiation when it's your turn') and explains what accept does, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The implied usage guidance is sufficient for correct selection.
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.