Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a custom domain (step 2 of 2)

verify_custom_domain
Idempotent

Check the TXT record the user added at step 1 and, if found, attach the domain to the site's ingress. If verification fails, the most common cause is DNS propagation delay; wait a few minutes and try again. Once verified, the domain serves the site immediately (HTTPS issues automatically within ~30s).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordIdYesThe recordId returned by add_custom_domain.
siteNameYesThe site the domain was attached to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
messageYes
verifiedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the actual side effect (attaching to ingress), the external dependency (DNS propagation delay), the recommended retry behavior, and the automatic HTTPS provisioning within ~30 seconds. This gives the agent a realistic model of how the tool behaves and what to expect. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides troubleshooting guidance, then states the outcome. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with a rich description and an output schema present, all necessary context is covered: prerequisite step, failure mode, retry guidance, and post-success behavior. The annotations already cover idempotency and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters, though it does connect recordId to the step 1 flow. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without adding significant new guidance.

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?

The description states a specific action: checking the TXT record and attaching the domain to the site's ingress. It clearly identifies this as the second step in a two-step flow, distinguishing it from add_custom_domain and other domain-related siblings. The title reinforces the step-based scope.

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?

The description implies the correct workflow context by referencing 'the TXT record the user added at step 1', indicating this tool is used after add_custom_domain. It also tells the agent what to do on failure (wait and retry). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the step-based guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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

All vibedeploy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources