set_auto_renewEnable or disable auto-renew for a domain you own. When enabled, the domain will be renewed automatically before expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to configure | |
| enabled | Yes | true to enable auto-renew, false to disable |
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 does disclose a key behavioral aspect: when enabled, the domain will be renewed automatically before expiry. This explains the effect of the operation. However, it omits potential details like whether disabling stops an already scheduled renewal, whether the domain must be in a specific status, or any billing implications. For a simple boolean toggle, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Enable or disable auto-renew'), and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it 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?
The tool is simple, with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the core behavior (automatic renewal before expiry) and the ownership prerequisite, which is the essential context. It does not describe return value side effects, but that is largely unnecessary for a straightforward setter. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with domain and enabled already fully described in the schema. The description rephrases the enabled parameter ('enable or disable') but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter clarity.
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 ('enable or disable auto-renew') and the resource ('a domain you own'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like renew_domain, which performs a one-time renewal, whereas this tool configures automatic renewal.
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 implies usage context: it applies to domains you own and affects automatic renewal behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as renew_domain or provide conditions like 'use this if you want the domain to renew automatically, use renew_domain for a one-time renewal.' The prerequisite 'a domain you own' is useful but incomplete guidance.
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.