Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_domain

Adds a custom domain to an addy.io account after the required DNS TXT verification record is configured.

Instructions

Add a custom domain. Its DNS must already have the TXT verification record addy.io shows in its dashboard.

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>"
    },
    "name": "create_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name, e.g. 'example.com'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (mutating, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious prerequisite about the TXT record, which is real value, but it stops short of saying what happens if the record is missing or whether the domain starts in an unverified state.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, action stated first and the blocking prerequisite second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

The creation precondition is covered, but with no output schema and no annotations about return behavior, the description says nothing about the resulting state (verification pending, immediate activation) or failure modes, which leaves an agent guessing about what to expect after the call.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'domain' with an example. The description adds the meaning that it must be a domain the caller controls with prior DNS setup, which is a modest increment over the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a custom domain.' That is clearly distinguishable from get_domain, update_domain, and delete_domain by intent, though the description itself does no explicit sibling routing.

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 precondition ('Its DNS must already have the TXT verification record') implies when this call will succeed, but there is no guidance on when to choose this versus update_domain or check_domain_sending_records, and no stated when-not conditions.

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