Skip to main content
Glama
uglyswap

internetbs-mcp

by uglyswap

domain_trade

Initiate a domain trade for .eu or .fr domains. Required when changing the registrant, as these TLDs don't allow simple updates.

Instructions

Trade a .eu or .fr domain (change of registrant). This is required for certain TLDs when the registrant changes, as a simple update is not allowed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain name to trade (must be .eu or .fr TLD)
ns_listNoComma-separated list of nameservers (e.g. ns1.example.com,ns2.example.com)
admin_emailNoAdmin contact email address
billing_emailNoBilling contact email address
admin_lastnameNoAdmin contact last name
admin_firstnameNoAdmin contact first name
registrant_cityNoRegistrant city
technical_emailNoTechnical contact email address
billing_lastnameNoBilling contact last name
registrant_emailNoRegistrant email address
billing_firstnameNoBilling contact first name
registrant_streetNoRegistrant street address
technical_lastnameNoTechnical contact last name
registrant_lastnameNoRegistrant last name
technical_firstnameNoTechnical contact first name
registrant_firstnameNoRegistrant first name
registrant_postalcodeNoRegistrant postal code
registrant_countrycodeNoRegistrant country code (e.g. US, FR, DE)
registrant_phonenumberNoRegistrant phone number (e.g. +1.5551234567)
registrant_organizationNoRegistrant organization
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the operation as a registrant change and the TLD restriction, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or reversibility. This is a moderate level of transparency for a mutation tool.

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 primary action and resource, and every word adds value. It is concise while conveying both the action and the critical usage context.

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?

Despite having 20 parameters and no output schema, the description clearly establishes the tool's purpose and when to use it. The schema covers all parameters, and the description resolves the main ambiguity with domain_update. It could be more complete regarding process details, but enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 20 parameters. The description adds the .eu/.fr TLD constraint for the 'domain' parameter but does not add meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions, matching the baseline of 3.

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 tool's action ('Trade a .eu or .fr domain') and specifies its purpose as a registrant change. It also distinguishes this from a simple update, effectively differentiating it from the sibling domain_update tool.

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 explicitly states when this tool is required: for certain TLDs ('.eu or .fr') when the registrant changes and a simple update is not allowed. It implies 'domain_update' is the alternative for other cases, providing clear contextual guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/uglyswap/internetbs-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server