List domains from the authenticated Encirca account that expire within a configurable number of days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| partner_id | No | ESB partner id. Optional if ENCIRCA_MCP_DEFAULT_PARTNER_ID is set. | |
| within_days | No | ||
| include_expired | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| domains | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| partnerId | No | ||
| withinDays | No | ||
| includeExpired | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the tool operates on the authenticated Encirca account and uses a range for expiration, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination (limit/maximum) or the include_expired behavior, which would be useful for transparency.
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 a single sentence, front-loading the purpose and key variant (configurable days). Every word contributes: 'authenticated Encirca account' scopes the data source, 'within a configurable number of days' explains the key filter. 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?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the tool has 4 optional parameters, low schema coverage, and moderate complexity (pagination limit, include_expired flag, partner_id). The description does not cover how to handle partner_id or the effect of include_expired. An additional sentence clarifying these would improve completeness.
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 low (25%, only partner_id has a description). The description adds meaning for within_days (configurable expiration threshold) and implies limit/account context, but does not explain include_expired or partner_id details. With 0 required params, baseline would be 4, but the low coverage demands compensation; the description provides some but not complete clarity for all 4 parameters.
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 it lists domains from the authenticated Encirca account, specifies the key filtering criterion (expire within configurable number of days), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_domains (which likely lists all domains) and check_domain_price or suggest_available_domains (which are about availability/pricing, not owned expiring domains).
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 gives minimal context for when to use: it is for finding domains nearing expiration. However, it does not explain when not to use it (e.g., when needing all domains, use list_my_domains) or mention any alternatives. The optional include_expired parameter is not mentioned, nor prerequisites like the partner id fallback.
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.
