Step 2: exchange the emailed 6-digit code for a boom_sk_ API key. Returns the key ONCE — reuse it for this user's later publish/list/delete calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The 6-digit code from the email. | |
| Yes | Same email used in request_publish_key. | ||
| label | No | Optional label for the key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the key is returned once and should be reused, implying non-idempotency. No annotations, so description carries burden. However, lacking details on error handling, invalid code, or persistence.
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, efficient, front-loaded with 'Step 2'. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple exchange tool with 3 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, sequence, and output usage. Lacks error handling or retry info, but adequate for the complexity.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context for email ('Same email used in request_publish_key') but not for code or label. Baseline 3 with minor addition.
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 it is Step 2 to exchange a 6-digit code for an API key, distinguishing it from request_publish_key (Step 1). Verb 'exchange' and resource 'code for API key' are specific.
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?
Explicitly positions as Step 2 in a sequence, and instructs to reuse the key for later calls. Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not 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.
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.
