Add a custom domain to the workspace. The domain must be configured to point to Linkly's servers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The domain name (e.g., 'links.example.com') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| workspace_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "A custom domain (mirrors the OpenAPI Domain schema)",
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "workspace_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the write operation described. The description adds critical prerequisite info (DNS configuration) beyond annotations, but does not disclose error behavior or idempotency.
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 with no redundancy. Action is front-loaded. Every word provides value.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action and a key requirement. It lacks mention of uniqueness or return details, but output schema likely fills gaps.
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% with parameter description, but the tool description adds useful semantic context about the domain pointing prerequisite, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
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 'Add a custom domain to the workspace' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_domain or list_domains by focusing on creation.
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 for adding custom domains but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide when-not guidance. No exclusions or comparisons are made.
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.