Skip to main content
Glama

OSIR Domain Registrar

by com.osir

transferDomain

transferDomain: Stage transfer of a domain from another registrar to OSIR. Deducts from account balance. Returns an actionId: present the summary to the user, then call executeConfirmedAction with the actionId if they approve.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesFully qualified domain name to transfer, like "example.com", without scheme.
authCodeYesEPP authorization code obtained from the current registrar.
sessionKeyNoSession key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth.
registrantInfoYesICANN registrant contact of the domain owner: firstName, lastName, email, phone (+CC.number), and address (street, city, postalCode, country as 2-letter ISO code).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / authCode / description
      Added value: +"EPP authorization code obtained from the current registrar."
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"Fully qualified domain name to transfer, like \"example.com\", without scheme."
    • addedInput schema / properties / registrantInfo / description
      Added value: +"ICANN registrant contact of the domain owner: firstName, lastName, email, phone (+CC.number), and address (street, city, postalCode, country as 2-letter ISO code)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it deducts from the account balance, returns an actionId, and only stages the transfer rather than completing it. Since annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical side-effect and workflow information that an agent needs.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical side effect, then explains the required follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a staged-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it states the side effect, the return value, and the exact next step the agent must take. Combined with a fully described input schema and relevant annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and handle the result.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for domain, authCode, sessionKey, and registrantInfo. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Stage transfer of a domain from another registrar to OSIR.' It clearly conveys this is a two-phase operation that returns an actionId and defers completion to executeConfirmedAction, which helps distinguish it from siblings like initiateTransfer. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for comparison, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to stage a domain transfer, and after presenting the summary to the user, call executeConfirmedAction if they approve. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as initiateTransfer or getTransferQuote, but the action-flow guidance is enough for an agent to know the intended sequence.

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

All OSIR Domain Registrar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources