snapshot_dnsCapture all DNS records for a domain via public DNS lookups. Discovers subdomains from CT logs, SPF, and common names. Stores a server-side backup. Use before migrations or transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to snapshot | |
| extra_subdomains | No | Additional subdomains to include |
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 full burden. It discloses the method (public DNS lookups), scope (all records, subdomain discovery from CT logs, SPF, common names), and side effect (stores a server-side backup). It could be more explicit about whether repeated snapshots overwrite or how backups are subsequently accessed, but overall it is fairly transparent.
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 substantive information: what it captures, how it discovers subdomains, and when to use it. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 description covers the tool's core behavior and use case, but it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a snapshot ID) or how the backup connects to restore_dns. Given there is no output schema, explaining the return value would be valuable for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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 schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that extra_subdomains supplements automatic subdomain discovery, enhancing the parameter's meaning beyond the schema alone.
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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture all DNS records for a domain via public DNS lookups.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_dns, set_dns, and restore_dns by emphasizing the snapshot/backup nature.
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 explicitly advises 'Use before migrations or transfers,' providing clear situational context. It does not name alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
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.