set_nameserversReplace the nameservers for a domain you own. Requires 2–13 valid hostnames. Common values: OpenSRS DNS (ns1.systemdns.com, ns2.systemdns.com, ns3.systemdns.com), Cloudflare (assigned per account), custom NS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to set nameservers for | |
| nameservers | Yes | Array of nameserver hostnames, e.g. ['ns1.systemdns.com', 'ns2.systemdns.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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation replaces existing nameservers and requires 2–13 valid hostnames, but it omits details on ownership verification, authentication, or side effects like propagation time. 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 three sentences that front-load the core action and constraints, followed by useful examples. No wasted words or unnecessary detail.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and practical examples. It doesn't address post-action behavior or error conditions, but the simplicity of the operation means this is not a critical gap.
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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds practical value by listing common nameserver providers and clarifying 'valid hostnames', which helps the agent construct realistic inputs. This goes beyond the schema's basic examples.
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 specifies a clear action ('Replace the nameservers') and resource ('for a domain you own'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_nameservers (read) and set_dns (DNS records). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
It clearly implies usage for changing nameservers on owned domains and provides common values, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_dns or state when not to use it. The context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.