Skip to main content
Glama

Inclusify Accessibility

by com.inclusifyapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add another domain to a website

add_domain
Idempotent

Use this when a site Inclusify already knows about is reachable on ANOTHER hostname the widget also needs to serve on — a country TLD, a subdomain, a staging host. WRITES to this website's Inclusify configuration, never to the site itself: no code, theme or DNS is touched, and adding a hostname here does not make it resolve. For a site Inclusify has never heard of, use add_website instead — this tool only adds to an existing one. The new hostname must be the SAME NAME as the site's existing domains: from "example.com" you may add "example.co.uk" or "shop.example.com", but not "somethingelse.com" — that is refused, and the refusal says what would have been allowed. Localhost and IP addresses are refused. A domain already registered to another Inclusify account is refused and needs support, because a hostname belongs to exactly one account. The first domain on a website becomes its primary; later ones do not. After adding, the widget must still be installed on that hostname — call widget_status to check whether it has reported in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe new hostname to add, e.g. "example.co.uk" or "shop.example.com". A URL works too and is reduced to its host. Must share a name with the website's existing domains.
websiteYesThe website to add TO, as already registered in Inclusify, e.g. "example.com".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond annotations: it 'WRITES to this website's Inclusify configuration, never to the site itself', touches no code/theme/DNS, does not make the hostname resolve, and explains primary domain behavior. These are important side effects and constraints that annotations do not capture.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: when to use, what it does/doesn't do, constraints, primary-domain rule, and follow-up action. It is well structured and front-loaded with the most important usage guidance.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema and no readonly annnotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, side effects, constraints, error refusals, primary-domain semantics, and the follow-up step to check widget installation. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and set expectations.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics: the new hostname must share a name with existing domains, URLs are reduced to their host, and localhost/IPs are refused. This goes well beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'add another domain to a website' and clarifies it applies to 'a site Inclusify already knows about' on 'ANOTHER hostname'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from add_website, making the tool's scope and purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: when a known site is reachable on another hostname. It also names the alternative, add_website, for 'a site Inclusify has never heard of', and lists refusal cases such as mismatched names, localhost, IP addresses, and domains registered to another account. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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

All Inclusify Accessibility toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources