updateDomainAutoRenew: Enable or disable auto-renewal for a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Fully qualified domain name, like "example.com", without scheme. | |
| enabled | Yes | true to enable automatic renewal, false to disable it. | |
| 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, like \"example.com\", without scheme."Input schema / properties / enabled / descriptionAdded value: +"true to enable automatic renewal, false to disable it."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only restates the toggling action and does not disclose side effects such as future billing implications, whether confirmation is returned, or whether an immediate charge could occur. Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false but do not provide the behavioral detail needed to fully understand the mutation's consequences.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The tool-name prefix is slightly redundant but does not meaningfully reduce clarity or conciseness.
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 setter with a fully documented schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential operation. It omits return-value details and billing side effects, but these are less critical given the straightforward boolean toggle and high schema coverage.
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 three parameters are already fully documented, including the domain format and sessionKey auth guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific action ('Enable or disable auto-renewal') applied to a domain resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like renewDomain or updateDomainPrivacy. The scope is unambiguous and the verb-resource pairing is explicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as renewDomain, nor any prerequisites like domain ownership, registration status, or whether the domain must currently be under management. The only implied usage comes from the term 'auto-renewal', leaving the agent to infer context.
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.