Return sanitized read-only details for a domain owned by the authenticated Encirca account. Auth codes and contact records are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| partner_id | No | ESB partner id. Optional if ENCIRCA_MCP_DEFAULT_PARTNER_ID is set. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| partnerId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the returned details are 'sanitized' and that 'auth codes and contact records are never returned.' This expands on the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a key constraint in the second sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.
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 the presence of an output schema, good annotations, and low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core behavior and exclusions. It could mention prerequisites like domain ownership verification, but that is implied by 'owned by the account.'
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 50% (only partner_id has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the 'domain' parameter, which lacks a description in the schema. The description could have clarified the expected format or the nature of the domain string, but it did not.
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 tool returns sanitized read-only details for a domain owned by the authenticated account, and explicitly notes what is never returned (auth codes, contact records). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_domains (listing) and suggest_available_domains (suggestions).
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 implies usage when needing detailed information about a specific owned domain, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_domain_requirements or list_my_domains. The condition 'owned by the authenticated account' provides a clear prerequisite, but no direct guidance on when not to use it.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (pricing, checkout, account info, domain management), though 'get_account_identity' and 'get_account_profile' overlap somewhat in returning account details. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could confuse which one to use for a given account query.
Tool names consistently use verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_domain_price, list_my_domains, get_domain_details). Minor inconsistency: 'suggest_available_domains' uses adjective_noun instead of noun_noun, but overall the pattern is clear and predictable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a domain management server covering pricing, checkout, account info, domain listing, and invoicing. Each tool serves a clear function without bloat.
The set covers core domain lookup, pricing, checkout, and account management, but lacks operations like domain registration confirmation, renewal, or transfer management. Gaps exist for lifecycle operations beyond initial purchase, which an agent might need.
