list_app_domainsList an app's platform path, subdomain, and configured custom domain with verification, SSL, primary-domain, redirect, publish, and login-gating status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned, which informs the agent of the output scope. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are not covered by annotations.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and then concisely enumerates the scope. No wasted words, and every element adds clarity. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and the description enumerates the exact fields returned. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and anticipate the response shape. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., whether it returns a single object or array), but the listing nature suggests an array of domain-related info. Overall, it is nearly complete for a list operation.
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 only parameter, app_id, has a schema description ('The app ID') that fully covers its meaning (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any additional context about the parameter, such as format or usage. Since the schema already provides adequate semantics, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('an app's platform path, subdomain, and configured custom domain') and enumerates the specific attributes returned (verification, SSL, primary-domain, redirect, publish, login-gating status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_ssl_status or configure_domain_redirects, which target narrower aspects.
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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It implies a comprehensive overview use case, but unlike the high-calibration example, it does not name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria. An agent would need to infer from the context that this is the go-to for a full domain status snapshot.
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.