Prepare a domain to transfer to another registrar.
Unlocks the domain and emails the EPP/auth code to the registrant contact on file (BorealHost never sees the code). The domain keeps working here until the transfer completes.
Requires: API key with write scope.
Returns: {"domain", "unlocked": true, "auth_code_emailed": true, "message"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond minimal disclosure by explaining the exact side effects: unlocking the domain, emailing the auth code to the registrant, noting BorealHost never sees the code, and confirming the domain remains functional until transfer completes. With no annotations provided, the description adequately carries the transparency burden.
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 compact and well-structured, with the purpose stated in the first line followed by concise bullet-like details. It avoids redundancy and every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description covers the action, side effects, requirements, and return structure. It lacks only minor details such as error scenarios or transfer timelines, but for the tool's complexity it is largely complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain the domain_name parameter format or constraints. The parameter is inferable from the tool purpose, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the parameter name itself.
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 first sentence 'Prepare a domain to transfer to another registrar' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. The subsequent details about unlocking and emailing the auth code further clarify its function, distinguishing it from domain management tools like domain_settings or register_domain.
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 implies the use case by stating 'Prepare a domain to transfer to another registrar' and mentions the requirement for write-scope API key, but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools. Given the absence of sibling transfer tools, the context is sufficient but not fully explicit.
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.
Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.
144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.
