setup_domain_emailPre-configure email DNS on a domain (optional). This is called automatically by create_mailbox when needed. Use this only to pre-configure DNS before creating mailboxes. Pass force=true to override existing email provider (Google Workspace, Fastmail, Proton).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Override existing MX records (e.g. Google Workspace). Default: false | |
| domain | Yes | Domain to enable email on, e.g. mysite.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 transparency burden. It discloses the tool's side effect of overriding existing email providers via force, and notes it's called automatically by another tool. While it doesn't mention potential reversibility or exact DNS changes, it provides meaningful behavioral context (pre-configuration, override semantics) beyond the raw parameters. This is solid, though not exhaustive.
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 total, each with clear purpose. It leads with the primary action, then explains automatic invocation, then describes the force flag. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simple nature (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to override existing providers. It could mention the outcome (DNS records set) but the core context is present. It's complete enough for an agent to decide invocation correctly, especially with the sibling tool context.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to 'force' by specifying it overrides existing providers like Google Workspace, Fastmail, Proton, which is more detailed than the schema's 'Override existing MX records'. It also reinforces the domain parameter example. This adds value beyond the schema.
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: 'Pre-configure email DNS on a domain'. It specifies the resource (email DNS on a domain) and verb (pre-configure). It also distinguishes itself from create_mailbox by noting it's called automatically and used only for pre-configuration, making its unique role clear among sibling tools.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'This is called automatically by create_mailbox when needed. Use this only to pre-configure DNS before creating mailboxes.' It tells when to use (pre-configure before creating mailboxes) and implicitly when not to use (since it's automatic). It also explains the force parameter's purpose for overriding existing providers, giving clear context for its use.
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.