Poll for device login completion. Call this after loginWithDevice() once you have opened the verification URL and signed in. Required: deviceCode (the device_code returned by loginWithDevice). On success returns a sessionKey — pass it as the sessionKey argument on every subsequent authenticated tool call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceCode | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a polling operation, requires a device code, returns a sessionKey on success, and mandates that sessionKey be reused in subsequent authenticated calls. It does not describe failure or pending states, but the core behavior is well disclosed for a one-parameter polling tool.
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?
Three concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by sequencing requirements and the essential parameter meaning. Every sentence adds 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 no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite flow, the required input, the expected success result, and the downstream sessionKey usage. It could be more complete about error or pending states, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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?
The schema only defines deviceCode as a required string with no description. The description adds critical meaning by explaining that deviceCode is the device_code returned by loginWithDevice, which is exactly what an agent needs to supply the correct value.
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: 'Poll for device login completion.' It clearly ties the tool to the loginWithDevice flow, making it easy to distinguish from auth-related siblings such as getAuthStatus and logout.
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 explicitly states when to call this tool: after loginWithDevice, after opening the verification URL, and after the user has signed in. It also explains what to do with the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing guidance is clear.
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.