Execute a previously staged destructive or financial action after user approval. Required: actionId (the UUID returned by the staging tool). The action expires after 5 minutes and can only be executed once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actionId | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the action is destructive or financial, that it expires after 5 minutes, and that it can only be executed once. This is strong behavioral context, though it stops short of describing side effects, error cases, or what happens after execution.
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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of critical information: what it does, the required parameter, and the constraints on execution.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: prerequisite, approval requirement, expiry, and one-time use. It does not enumerate which staging tools produce actionId or what the response contains, but the core calling context is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 50%. The description compensates for the undocumented actionId by explaining that it is the UUID returned by the staging tool and is required. The sessionKey parameter is already described well in the schema, so the description does not need to 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Execute') and clearly identifies the resource ('a previously staged destructive or financial action after user approval'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that create, modify, or pay for resources because it is explicitly the confirmation/execution step for a staged action.
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 clearly states the context for use: only after user approval and only with the actionId returned by the staging tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use cases, but the staging-and-approval precondition 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.