list_custom_domainsReturn all custom domains attached to a site. Each entry has a recordId you can pass to verify_custom_domain or remove_custom_domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteName | Yes | The site whose custom domains to list. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | ||
| siteName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / request_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds value by stating that the response is a full list of all custom domains and that each entry exposes a recordId, which is directly useful for subsequent operations.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the downstream usage detail is concise and directly relevant.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the useful recordId linkage.
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 schema fully documents the single required parameter siteName with a clear description. The tool description does not add much beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return all custom domains attached to a site.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from related domain tools like add_custom_domain, verify_custom_domain, and remove_custom_domain.
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 explains a practical downstream use case: each returned entry has a recordId that can be passed to verify_custom_domain or remove_custom_domain. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.
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.