unsell_domainRemove an active for-sale listing for a domain you own. The domain stays in your account but is no longer purchasable on the marketplace. Requires domains:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to unlist, e.g. premium.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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: removes the listing, domain remains in account, and becomes non-purchasable on marketplace. It also states the required OAuth scope (domains:write), which is useful for authorization awareness. It could add error handling or reversibility, but for a simple mutation this is reasonably 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?
Three concise sentences, each adding value: the action, the consequence, and the required scope. No redundant information or filler. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what happens (listing removed), the lasting effect (stays in account, not purchasable), and the authentication requirement. The context signals show only one required parameter with full schema coverage, so no additional return value or nested objects need explanation.
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 the only parameter 'domain' already described as 'Domain to unlist, e.g. premium.com'. The description adds context that the domain must be owned and the listing must be active, which slightly enhances meaning beyond the schema, but this is not significant given the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 specific action (remove an active for-sale listing) and the resource (domain you own). It distinguishes from related tools like sell_domain and update_listing by explicitly noting the domain stays in the account but is no longer purchasable on the marketplace.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use: when you own a domain and want to remove its active for-sale listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for typical usage. The effect (no longer purchasable) helps clarify the purpose versus other listing tools.
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.