Ginta

Connect the user's own domain (or check it)

connect_domain

Use when the user wants their own domain (e.g. "bakery.com") on a site, or asks whether it works yet: with domain it connects it (bakery.com shows the site, www.bakery.com redirects to it) and returns the exact DNS steps for their provider to relay (a record for the domain, a CNAME for www, and a TXT record proving the domain is theirs: the site is not served until it is seen); without domain it checks the status (pending, verifying, active) and whether https://bakery.com opens.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	No	The domain, e.g. "bakery.com" or "shop.bakery.com". Omit to check the current one.
`site_id`	Yes	The site id: the first part of the site URL, e.g. "bella-roma" for https://bella-roma.ginta.page (see list_sites).
`with_www`	No	Only if the user wants www.bakery.com as the main address (bakery.com then redirects to it). Default: bakery.com is the main address.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The answer in words, the same as the text content: read it (for get_guide the whole guide, for get_site the files' contents).
`domain`	No	The domain: state (pending, verifying, active, error), records and the steps for its DNS provider; null = none.
`enabled`	No	Whether connecting domains is open.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / text

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The answer in words, the same as the text content: read it (for get_guide the whole guide, for get_site the files' contents).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "text"
+]
```

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare write/openWorld/not-idempotent; the description adds the substantive behavior: it returns exact DNS steps, requires an A record, a www CNAME and a proving TXT record, and states the site is not served until verification is observed. It does not address re-running the connect for a different domain, how to undo a connection, or propagation timing, which keeps this below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the two argument-driven modes and their consequences in a single dense but well-ordered sentence plus a closing clause. Every clause carries distinct information (trigger, action, returned DNS records, gating rule, check mode).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool whose output schema already documents returns, the description covers prerequisites, the verification gate, the www variant, and the check mode, which is enough to call it correctly. Residual gaps are lifecycle questions (changing or removing a domain) rather than invocation correctness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting `domain` switches to status-check mode, and `with_www` flips which hostname is primary and which redirects, illustrated with bakery.com/www.bakery.com. `site_id` is left to the schema, which already documents it well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (connect the user's own domain to a site) and explicitly covers the second, distinct behavior (status check) selected by the presence or absence of `domain`. The mode split is spelled out with a concrete example, so an agent knows exactly what it is calling for either case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger: "Use when the user wants their own domain on a site, or asks whether it works yet," and the argument-based branch (with `domain` = connect, without = check) functions as an implicit when-to-use rule. It never names alternatives among siblings such as manage_connections or preview_site, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ginta tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?