update_listingUpdate the price and/or description of an active marketplace listing. Requires domains:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | No | New price in USD | |
| domain | Yes | Domain with active listing, e.g. premium.com | |
| description | No | New description (null to clear) |
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 burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by requiring 'domains:write scope' and indicating partial updates ('price and/or description'), but it does not disclose failure behavior for inactive listings, response format, or side effects. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the permission requirement. No wasted words, fully self-contained, and easy to parse.
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?
This is a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers purpose and permission, and the schema covers parameters. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling set_listing_price and does not describe return values, but for a simple update operation with full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.
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 each parameter described (e.g., 'New price in USD', 'Domain with active listing', 'New description (null to clear)'). The description's mention of 'price and/or description' reinforces the schema but adds no new syntactic or format details 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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('active marketplace listing'), and specifies the fields ('price and/or description'). This distinguishes it from siblings like browse_marketplace (view) and sell_domain (create listing), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 by mentioning 'active marketplace listing' and the required 'domains:write scope', but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like set_listing_price or explain exclusions (e.g., when the listing is not active). It gives context without naming alternatives, fitting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
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.