set_listing_priceSet a 'For Sale' price on a parked domain, or remove the listing. When a price is set and parking is enabled, visitors see a 'For Sale' page with the price and a contact form to reach the domain owner. Set price to null to remove the listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | Yes | Sale price in USD (e.g. 499.99), or null to remove the listing | |
| domain | Yes | Domain to configure, e.g. example.com |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the visitor-facing effect (For Sale page with price and contact form) and the conditional dependence on parking being enabled. It could mention ownership/authorization requirements, but for a simple setter this is adequate.
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 with no fluff: states the action, explains the behavioral outcome, and specifies the null removal case. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 tool with two simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains the operation and its effects. It could mention the relation to parking settings or sibling tools (e.g., set_parking), but the core operation is fully covered.
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%, and the description's mention of 'Set price to null to remove the listing' largely duplicates the schema's price description. It adds no new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('listing price') and clarifies it applies to parked domains. It also covers the removal case (null), making the tool's full purpose clear and distinguishing it from generic listing tools like update_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: use this to set or remove a 'For Sale' price on a parked domain. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most cases.
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.