updateDomainPrivacy: Enable or disable WHOIS privacy protection for a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Fully qualified domain name, like "example.com", without scheme. | |
| enabled | Yes | true to enable WHOIS privacy protection, 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 WHOIS privacy protection, false to disable it."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful meaning by naming the exact behavior, toggling WHOIS privacy protection, which is beyond the annotation booleans. However, it does not mention prerequisites, OAuth/session authorization nuance, or whether changes take effect immediately; the annotations only provide basic safety signals.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target without unnecessary elaboration. The redundant tool-name prefix is minor and does not detract from the overall clarity.
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 two-required-parameter toggle with a fully described schema and no nested objects, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the operation. There is no output schema to document, so the absence of return-value details is acceptable.
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 description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline score for a fully documented schema.
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 uses a specific verb pair, "Enable or disable", with a clear resource: "WHOIS privacy protection" for a domain. This is precise and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like lockDomain or updateDomainAutoRenew, which address different domain settings.
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 description clearly communicates when to use the tool: whenever WHOIS privacy needs to be enabled or disabled for a domain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool targets WHOIS privacy, so the usage context is still clear.
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.