configure_domain_redirectsConfigure custom-domain redirect policy: primary domain, optional www/root redirect, and HTTPS enforcement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| force_https | No | Redirect HTTP custom-domain requests to HTTPS | |
| redirect_www | No | Redirect the www/root counterpart to primary_domain | |
| primary_domain | Yes | Canonical primary domain, for example example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., whether it replaces existing redirects, if it affects live traffic immediately, or if it fails when the domain is unverified). With annotations covering the basic mutation profile, the description offers minimal added transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that captures the core purpose and key options without fluff. No wasted words; every part is informative.
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 configuration operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves out important context like prerequisites, side effects, or failure conditions. Given the openWorldHint and mutating nature, more context would help an agent call it correctly, though it's not severely incomplete.
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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The summary sentence merely re-iterates the parameter list without adding new meaning, so the schema carries the semantic burden. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Configure custom-domain redirect policy' and lists the specific aspects (primary domain, www/root redirect, HTTPS enforcement). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_primary_domain, which likely only sets the canonical domain without redirect policy.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., domain must be verified or added), nor does it differentiate from set_primary_domain or check_domain_verification. An agent cannot infer the appropriate context without extra knowledge.
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.