getDomainAuditTrail: Get the audit trail (history of all changes) for a specific domain. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Fully qualified domain name to fetch the audit trail for (e.g. 'example.com'). | |
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionAdded value: +"Fully qualified domain name to fetch the audit trail for (e.g. 'example.com')."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the key safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds the authentication requirement and clarifies the response covers 'history of all changes.' This is useful but does not disclose details like authorization scope, pagination, or ordering.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the authentication prerequisite. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
For a simple read-only parameterized tool with full schema coverage and robust annotations, the description is sufficient. It identifies the resource, the object returned, and the auth requirement. It does not describe output format, but no output schema exists and the return concept is clearly stated as 'audit trail (history of all changes).'
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description does not add semantics beyond identifying the target as 'a specific domain,' which is already captured in the domain parameter description.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the audit trail ... for a specific domain.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and implicitly differentiates it from broader account-level tools like getMyAuditLogs and getRecentActivity, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 phrase 'for a specific domain' implies when to use this tool, and 'Requires authentication' is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related audit/log tools or when not to use it, leaving the usage context mostly implicit.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but there are several overlapping clusters: six domain-suggestion tools (addPrefixToDomain, addSuffixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, spinDomainWords, suggestAlternatives) and overlapping account-info tools (getMyProfile, getAccountSummary, getRecentActivity, getMyAuditLogs). Descriptions help, but with 105 tools an agent will regularly face near-identical choices.
The dominant convention is verbNoun camelCase (createContact, listDnsRecords, updateNameservers), which is readable and predictable. Deviations exist in the osirApp* and osirSite* families, where the noun precedes the verb, and a few names like suggestAlternatives and spinDomainWords break the pattern.
105 tools is far beyond a coherent MCP server surface; even if the platform genuinely spans domains, DNS, email, VPS, billing, and app hosting, this should be split into focused servers. Many tools are single-purpose getters that add selection overhead rather than earning their place as one integrated set.
The covered services have broad CRUD/lifecycle coverage: contacts, DNS, hosts, domains, email, VPS, SSH keys, invoices, and Osir apps all have create/read/update/delete paths. Some registrar-specific operations (e.g., contact reassignment after registration, domain deletion/redemption) are missing, and the sheer sprawl makes coverage hard to verify.