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 | ||
| request_id | No | Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that each entry has a recordId, which is useful behavioral context for chaining operations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output structure (recordId), and how to use the result with sibling tools. Complete for a simple 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter siteName is described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'all custom domains attached to a site'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like verify_custom_domain and remove_custom_domain by mentioning the recordId in the output.
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 tells the user what to do with the output (pass recordId to verify_custom_domain or remove_custom_domain), providing clear usage context. It would benefit from explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for a listing tool.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from deployment and file management to domain configuration and analytics. Even similar-sounding tools like add_files and add_file_chunk are well-differentiated by context and use case.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., add_custom_domain, list_sites, delete_source_file). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
39 tools is higher than the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a necessary function for a comprehensive deployment platform. The count is justified by the broad feature set, though slightly heavy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of site deployment, management, backup, custom domains, form handling, analytics, and source editing. There are no obvious gaps for the intended functionality.