Check if a host/glue record name is available for creation. Requires authentication. Required: hostname (e.g., 'ns1.example.com')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | ||
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an authentication requirement, but does not describe the response format, whether the check is read-only, or what 'unavailable' means. Some behavioral context exists, but not full.
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 short sentences, each adding necessary information: the operation, the authentication prerequisite, and the required parameter with an example. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter check tool, the core calling context is covered (purpose, auth, required hostname format). However, with no output schema, the description leaves the return shape and semantics of the availability result unstated, so it is only 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 only 50%; hostname has no schema description. The description compensates with a concrete example ('ns1.example.com') and states it is required. sessionKey is already well documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it.
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?
Description specifies a precise operation: check availability of a host/glue record name for creation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createHost, getHostsForDomain, and validateDomainName by emphasizing the pre-creation availability check.
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?
Clear context: use before creating a host/glue record, and requires authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the intended use case is unambiguous.
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.