Attach a custom domain (apex like example.com, or subdomain like blog.example.com) to a site the key owns. Returns the DNS records the user must add; HTTPS is automatic. Requires a key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must inform behavior. It states the tool returns DNS records and HTTPS is automatic, and requires a key. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., replacing existing domain, ownership verification needs, irreversibility).
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 convey the core information concisely: what it does (attach domain, with examples), what it returns (DNS records), behavioral note (HTTPS automatic), and a prerequisite (requires a key). No unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the main action, return value, and a behavioral trait. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., domain verification), state changes (e.g., overwriting existing domains), and failure cases. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly explains parameters: 'key' is mentioned as required, 'domain' is the custom domain, and 'name' is inferred as the site name. No explicit descriptions of formats, constraints, or parameter relationships are provided.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'attach a custom domain' and provides examples of domain formats. It specifies the resource ('site the key owns') and outcome ('returns DNS records; HTTPS automatic'). While the purpose is distinct from sibling tool 'detach_domain', no explicit differentiation is provided.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detach_domain' or other domain-related tools. The description implies usage for attaching domains, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
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.
All 14 tools have clearly distinct purposes with no overlap. Related tools like buy_credits, get_balance, and list_topup_packs handle different aspects of credit management without ambiguity.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., attach_domain, delete_site, list_sites). No mixing of conventions.
14 tools cover the core functionality of a static site hosting service: domain management, site publishing/deletion, credit system, key acquisition, and name checking. The scope is well-balanced.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle (create, read, update, delete) for sites and domains. Minor gaps include no direct tool to rename a site or manage keys beyond creation.
