Update the favicon URL for a custom domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_id | Yes | The ID of the domain to update | |
| favicon_url | Yes | URL to the favicon image |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'update,' missing details like permission requirements or effects on existing state. With annotations present, the description provides minimal added value.
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 concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words.
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 update with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the destructiveHint annotation, more context about reversibility or validation of favicon_url could be helpful. The description does not address potential side effects.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, hitting the baseline.
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 verb 'update' and the resource 'favicon URL for a custom domain.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_link or update_workspace by focusing on a specific domain-level attribute.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_domain or update_link). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the domain needing to exist, nor any exclusion criteria.
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.