Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
porkbun-mcp-server

porkbun-mcp-server

by Avicennasis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

transfer_domain

Transfer a domain to Porkbun by submitting the EPP authorization code, domain name, and exact cost. Provide a reason for audit; transfers complete within 5-7 days.

Instructions

Initiate an inbound domain transfer. auth_code is the EPP authorization code from the current registrar. cost is in pennies and must match the transfer price. Transfers take 5–7 days. This is a financial operation. action=TRANSFER.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "auth_code": "<auth_code>",
      "cost": "<cost>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "transfer_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
costYes
domainYes
reasonYes
auth_codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a financial operation, takes 5-7 days, and requires specific inputs, but does not detail side effects, authentication needs, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (4 short lines), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words, though slightly unstructured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main action and some parameters but omits return format, prerequisites, and error handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains auth_code (EPP code) and cost (pennies, must match price) but leaves domain and reason undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Initiate an inbound domain transfer,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_domain and check_availability, and provides additional context (auth_code, cost, timeline).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for inbound transfers and mentions constraints (cost matching, auth_code requirement), but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools