Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
send16-mcp

send16-mcp

by spruikco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

add_domain

Register a new sending domain. Provide a fully qualified domain name to receive DNS records for verification.

Instructions

Register a new sending domain. Returns the DNS records the user must add to their DNS provider, after which they should call check_domain_health to verify.

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": "add_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNoSend16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
domainYesFQDN to register (e.g. 'mail.example.com')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 the registration action and the return of DNS records. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens if domain already exists), required permissions, or idempotency, which are important for a mutation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and provides a clear follow-up step. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers input (domain), output (DNS records), and the follow-up step (check_domain_health). It lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites, but for a 2-param tool without output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters (apiKey, domain) are described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Register' and the resource 'a new sending domain', distinguishing it from its sibling 'check_domain_health' which is mentioned explicitly. The purpose is 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear usage context: register a new domain. It also tells the user what to do after ('call check_domain_health to verify'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond check_domain_health.

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