check_domain_verificationCheck Fine Structure custom-domain verification and SSL status for the configured custom domain, then save the latest status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| domain | No | Optional configured custom domain. If omitted, uses the app's current custom domain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses a side effect ('then save the latest status'), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description is consistent and provides the specific nature of the mutation (saving status). It does not go into details of failure modes or overwriting behavior, but the core side effect is clearly disclosed.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the primary action ('Check...') followed by the side effect ('then save...'). It wastes no words, though splitting the check and save into separate sentences could improve readability. Overall, it is efficiently structured for an agent.
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 is relatively simple, but the description leaves gaps: it does not clarify what happens if no custom domain is configured (though 'configured' implies one exists), what 'status' encompasses (verification and SSL states), or what the function returns. Without an output schema, this information would help an agent understand expectations. It is adequate but not fully complete given the context of related domain tools.
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 description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'the configured custom domain' hints at the domain param, but it does not add syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and no additional value from the 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 ('Check') and resource ('Fine Structure custom-domain verification and SSL status'), and includes the side effect 'save the latest status.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_domain_verification and get_domain_ssl_status, which only retrieve without saving. The action is unambiguous.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_domain_verification or get_domain_ssl_status. The description does not mention alternatives or the condition for choosing this combined check-and-save approach. An agent might not know if they need this tool or one of the read-only getters, leaving the decision to inference.
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 have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.