getHostsForDomain: List all host/glue records associated with a domain. Requires authentication. Returns each host name and its IP addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Fully qualified domain name whose host records to list, e.g. 'example.com'. | |
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionAdded value: +"Fully qualified domain name whose host records to list, e.g. 'example.com'."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it states that authentication is required and describes what the response contains (host names and IP addresses).
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 two sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. The redundant 'getHostsForDomain:' prefix is minor and does not meaningfully detract.
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 description covers the core call intent, authentication requirement, and return content. Without an output schema, it would benefit from more detail on response shape or empty-result behavior, but for a straightforward list operation it is largely sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both 'domain' and 'sessionKey'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and names the exact resource ('all host/glue records associated with a domain'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like getContactsForDomain or listDnsRecords. The scope is unambiguous.
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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need host/glue records for a domain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is distinct enough that usage intent is obvious.
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.