Generate domain name suggestions based on keywords. Required: name (e.g., 'mycompany'). Optional: tlds (e.g., 'com,net,org'), lang ('eng'), useNumbers (true/false), maxResults (20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tlds | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| useNumbers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'generates' suggestions but does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, how results are ordered, or whether TLDs are validated against a known list.
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, efficient sentence that leads with the core action and then packs required and optional parameters with examples. No filler or redundant wording is present.
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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more context. It covers parameters and core purpose, but it omits return-value shape, limitations, and any relationship to sibling tools. This is minimum viable but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding between similar suggestion tools.
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%, yet the description adds meaningful semantics for all five parameters, including allowed formats, example values, and a default for maxResults. It could be slightly richer (e.g., what 'useNumbers' actually controls), but it compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's function: generating domain name suggestions from keywords, with a concrete example ('mycompany'). However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like bulkDomainSuggestions or spinDomainWords, so the agent must infer which one fits the task.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, or spinDomainWords. The description only explains parameters, not the intended use case or exclusions.
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.