Generate domain suggestions by adding prefixes. Required: name (e.g., 'mycompany'). Optional: vocabulary ('@prefixes' or custom), tlds ('com,net'), lang ('eng'), maxResults (20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tlds | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| vocabulary | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says the tool generates suggestions and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return shape is, whether there are rate limits, or any side effects. This is a notable gap.
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 focused sentence with parentea included example values. There is no padding, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every part of the sentence adds useful information.
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 flat-parameter generation tool, this description covers the operation and all parameters with examples. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value semantics and explicit alternative selection guidance. An agent could call it correctly but would have to infer outputs.
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 0%, so parameter documentation falls entirely on the description. The description provides concrete example values for every parameter ('mycompany', '@prefixes', 'com,net', 'eng', 20), which materially helps an agent understand expected formats without opening external docs. It still leaves some ambiguity around lang format and tlds syntax, but it compensates well.
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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('domain suggestions') with a clear method ('by adding prefixes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addSuffixToDomain, and the example clarifies what kind of input is expected.
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?
Usage is implied through the tool name and description, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like addSuffixToDomain or generateDomainSuggestions. No when-not conditions or alternative guidance is provided.
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.
The set has several near-duplicate or heavily overlapping tools: initiateTransfer and transferDomain appear to do the same thing, and generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, spinDomainWords, and addPrefix/addSuffixToDomain all occupy suggestion space. Account/profile tools like getAccountSummary, getMyProfile, getRecentActivity, and getMyAuditLogs also blur together.
Many tools follow verb_noun camelCase (createDnsRecord, listInvoices, updateContact), but the broader set mixes styles: osirAppCreateUpload vs osirAppList vs osirAppStatus, plus inconsistent verbs like check/verify/validate/preview for similar lookup actions. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full surface.
105 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, even one spanning domain registration, DNS, VPS, email, billing, app deployment, and site publishing. The surface would be far more coherent split into focused servers by domain.
Core domain, DNS, billing, VPS, mail, and app deployment workflows are broadly covered. However, there are notable gaps: no way to update or reassign the contacts on an existing domain, no update operation for host/glue records, and no VPS power operations like reboot or stop outside the external control panel.