Get a transfer price quote for a domain. Requires authentication. Required: domain (e.g., 'example.com'). Returns transfer price, currency, extension years, and new expiration date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does usefully state that authentication is required and enumerate the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether the quote is non-binding, whether a transfer is not initiated, or whether any charge occurs.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then pack authentication, required input, and return values with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent needs: authentication, required input, and exact returned values. It is slightly incomplete in not distinguishing from similar transfer-related tools, but those distinctions are secondary for invoking this quote tool.
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 already documents sessionKey well, but the 'domain' parameter has only a type, so the description compensates with a concrete example and a required marker. It does not provide deeper domain-format guidance, leaving some parameter-semantic burden unmet.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a transfer price quote for a domain, listing the returned data: price, currency, extension years, and new expiration date. It is clear and distinguishable from name alone, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like getTransferStatus or initiateTransfer.
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 states the operation and authentication requirement but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as getTransferStatus, initiateTransfer, or getDomainPricing. Usage context is implied by the name and purpose rather than directly stated.
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.