Generate domain suggestions by adding suffixes. Required: name (e.g., 'mycompany'). Optional: vocabulary ('@suffixes' 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that the tool generates suggestions by adding suffixes and lists some inputs; it does not disclose read-only status, response format, side effects, or behavior around missing/invalid inputs. This is minimal for a tool with no safety annotations.
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 main behavior is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact required/optional parameter summary. Every clause earns its place and the description remains scannable without redundant prose.
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?
The input side is complete enough to make a basic call, since all five parameters have examples. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return format/behavior and doesn't explain when this tool should be preferred over its many siblings, leaving it minimally complete.
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 0%, but the description compensates by giving every parameter an example: name ('mycompany'), vocabulary ('@uffixes' or custom), tlds ('com,net'), lang ('eng'), and maxResults (20). It distinguishes required from optional and provides plausible formats, though 'custom' vocabulary and exact defaults remain vague.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Generate domain suggestions') and names the distinguishing method ('by adding suffixes'), which separates it from sibling tools like addPrefixToDomain. It does not explicitly contrast with generateDomainSuggestions, but the suffix-specific method is still a clear differentiator.
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 provides invocation details (required and optional parameters) but gives no when-to-use guidance. It never mentions alternatives such as addPrefixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, or bulkDomainSuggestions, so an agent gets no help choosing among overlapping siblings.
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.