spawnpoint

Verify custom domain

verify_custom_domain

Idempotent

Re-run the DNS check for a claimed custom domain (add_custom_domain first). Success means the domain now serves the project with automatic HTTPS. Failure is normal while DNS propagates: the result stays pending and carries the records still expected plus the reason in plain words; wait a few minutes and call again.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "verify_custom_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	the hostname to attach, e.g. app.example.com; lowercase, no scheme or path
`project_id`	Yes	the id of the project

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dns`	No
`url`	No
`note`	No
`domain`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail they cannot: success means the domain serves the project with automatic HTTPS, while failure leaves the result pending with the expected records and a plain-language reason. It doesn't cover authorization requirements or whether a verification attempt has side effects on stored state, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: the action, the success meaning, and the failure-and-retry semantics. The core action and prerequisite are front-loaded with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't restate return shapes — and it still sketches the meaningful result states (success vs. pending). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description only needs to avoid contradicting them. It implies the domain must already be claimed but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource — re-running the DNS check for a claimed custom domain — and distinguishes this tool from the sibling add_custom_domain by naming it as the prerequisite step. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the precondition (add_custom_domain first) and explicitly frames failure as an expected, retryable state: 'wait a few minutes and call again.' That is direct when-to-use and when-to-retry guidance rather than inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All spawnpoint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.