restore_dnsRestore DNS records from the server-side backup (created by snapshot_dns or during transfers). Uses diff to avoid duplicates. Call snapshot_dns first to create a backup. Pass dry_run to preview what would be applied without writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to restore DNS for | |
| dry_run | No | Preview only - returns would_apply without writing anything |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / dry_runAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Preview only - returns would_apply without writing anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries the burden. It discloses the use of diff to avoid duplicates, the need for a prior snapshot, and dry_run behavior (preview without writing). Does not fully explain side effects on existing records, but gives meaningful behavioral context.
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, all valuable, front-loaded with primary purpose, then key mechanism and usage guidance. No fluff.
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?
With 2 simple params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and dry_run. The only minor gap is what happens to existing records on a non-dry-run restore, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces dry_run's purpose but adds little 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 action ('Restore DNS records') and the source ('server-side backup'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like snapshot_dns and set_dns.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call snapshot_dns first and mentions dry_run for preview, providing clear context. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions but the prerequisite implies usage scenario.
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.