search_domainsSearch real domain availability + prices (com/net/org/co/io/site and more). Available results include a purchase_url — hand it to the USER to complete checkout; the connector never spends money. Purchased domains connect to their sites in one click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Domain or name to check, e.g. 'sierratrailcoffee.com'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: available results include a purchase_url, but the connector never spends money and the user must finish the purchase. This prevents the agent from misinterpreting the result as something to act on financially.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. The final sentence about purchased domains connecting to sites is contextually useful but somewhat incidental to invoking this tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.
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 one-parameter, read-only, high-schema-coverage tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool checks (availability and prices), what the returned result contains when available (purchase_url), and what to do with that result (give it to the user).
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 input schema already documents the single query parameter completely with an example, so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds a little extra meaning by listing supported TLDs, but the schema carries most of the semantic weight.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Search real domain availability + prices', which clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from the site-management siblings such as create_site, edit_site, and publish_site. It also names covered TLDs, so the tool's scope is immediately apparent.
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 explicitly frames the tool as search-only and tells the agent not to complete checkout itself: 'hand it to the USER to complete checkout; the connector never spends money.' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive, especially useful in the presence of create/publish siblings.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct action/resource, with create, edit, file access, publishing, status, analytics, domains, and account clearly separated. The only possible ambiguity is edit_site vs write_site_files, since both modify a draft, but the descriptions clarify AI edit vs direct file push.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_site, list_sites, publish_site), which makes the set easy to navigate. Minor deviations: whoami doesn't follow the pattern, and get_analytics omits the site qualifier.
Twelve tools is a well-scoped size for a hosted website builder; the set covers creation, editing, file management, publishing, build status, analytics, domains, and account access. Each tool earns its place without bloating the surface.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: create, draft/file read/write, publish, status, listing/details, analytics, and account. Missing delete/unpublish and a tool for reading form submissions are gaps, but they are minor relative to the covered workflows.