Check the current status of a domain transfer. Requires authentication. Required: domain (e.g., 'example.com'). Returns status, request date, current registrar, and expected completion.
| 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 behavioral burden. It explicitly states authentication is required and enumerates the returned fields. It also implies a non-mutating operation through 'check' rather than a modification verb, though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or describe error behavior.
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 the main action front-loaded, followed by necessary auth/parameter context, then return values. There is no fluff and the description does not merely restate the tool name.
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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth precondition, required argument, and the fields the caller will receive. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.
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 only 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented domain parameter by marking it required and giving an example ('example.com'). It does not repeat sessionKey semantics already documented in the schema, which is acceptable.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check the current status of a domain transfer.' It also lists the return fields (status, request date, current registrar, expected completion), which distinguishes this status tool from mutation/quote siblings like transferDomain, cancelTransfer, and getTransferQuote.
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 gives prerequisites ('Requires authentication', 'Required: domain') and implies the use case by saying it checks status. However, it never contrasts itself with alternatives such as listPendingTransfers or getTransferQuote, so the when-not-to-use guidance is left to inference.
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.