sell_domainList a domain you own for sale on the Domani marketplace. Buyers can purchase it directly via the API. The domain must be active and not already listed. Requires domains:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | Yes | Sale price in USD (e.g. 5000) | |
| domain | Yes | Domain to list for sale, e.g. premium.com | |
| description | No | Optional listing description |
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 provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important prerequisites (active domain, not already listed) and the required access scope ('domains:write'). It also notes that buyers can purchase directly via the API. However, it does not disclose post-listing behavior such as whether the domain becomes immediately transferable, whether fees apply, or how reversible the action is via 'unsell_domain'.
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 concise sentences, each adding essential information: action, buyer behavior, and prerequisites/scope. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important details are front-loaded.
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 marketplace listing tool, the description covers the core action and prerequisites but omits important contextual details: lifecycle after listing (e.g., how buyers complete purchase, transfer mechanics), possible fees or pricing constraints, and relationship to sibling tools like 'update_listing' or 'set_listing_price'. The lack of an output schema and annotations increases the need for more context, which is only partially met.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (price, domain, description), so the schema provides the parameter meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List a domain you own for sale on the Domani marketplace.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('domain'), and adds selling context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unsell_domain' and 'update_listing' by focusing on initial listing.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you own a domain, want to list it for sale, and the domain is active and not already listed. It also states the required scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'update_listing' for already-listed domains, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.