Step 1 of getting a publishing key (there are no accounts). Emails a 6-digit code to the given address. Then ask the user for that code and call create_publish_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The user's email address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: emails a 6-digit code, there are no accounts, and it is Step 1. Minor missing details like error handling or idempotency but not crucial for this simple tool.
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, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, immediately useful for an AI agent.
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?
Given one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and follow-up step. Complete for its complexity level.
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% but description adds context: the email is used to send a code. This goes beyond the schema's 'user's email address,' explaining the purpose and outcome.
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 this is Step 1 of a two-step process to get a publishing key. It specifies the action (sends a 6-digit code to email) and distinguishes from the sibling 'create_publish_key' by indicating the next step.
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 describes the correct usage sequence: first call this tool, then ask the user for the code, then call create_publish_key. This provides clear when-to-use and excludes alternative paths.
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.
