watch_transferWatch a domain and get notified (email + webhook) when it becomes eligible for transfer. Uses RDAP to check ICANN lock periods and EPP status codes. If the domain is already eligible, returns immediately without creating a watch. If not eligible but has a known date, creates a watch and notifies you when it's ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to watch, e.g. example.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 transparency burden. It discloses the underlying method (RDAP, ICANN lock periods, EPP status codes), the conditional outcomes (returns immediately if eligible, creates watch if not), and the notification channels. However, it fails to describe the case where the domain is not eligible and has no known date, leaving a behavioral gap. It also does not mention authentication or side effects, but the disclosed conditions are valuable.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by technical detail and conditional behavior. Every sentence adds substantive information with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must cover main behaviors. It explains the watch creation, notification method, and immediate-return case. However, it omits the no-known-date scenario and does not describe what the return value looks like in either branch. These are notable gaps, but the description still covers the most important aspects for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%: the single 'domain' parameter is described with an example. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that the parameter is the domain to watch. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 watches a domain and notifies when it becomes eligible for transfer, specifying the mechanism (email + webhook). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_transfer_eligibility by emphasizing the watch-and-notify behavior and the immediate-return condition. The verb 'watch' and resource 'domain' are specific and 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to be notified when a domain becomes eligible. It also implies a condition (if already eligible, returns immediately) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
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.