Preview the fees that would be charged for a given payment amount. Requires authentication. Required: amount (double). Optional: currency (string)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| currency | No | ||
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Preview' and 'would be charged' reasonably imply a non-mutating operation, and the auth requirement is disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state that no payment or charge is created, nor describe rate limits or response 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?
The description is two compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then provides the critical auth and parameter summary in a scannable format.
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 preview tool with three parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential inputs, the auth requirement, and the preview nature of the call. It does not explain the return structure, but since no output schema exists, a slightly richer note about the response shape would improve completeness.
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 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds plain-language semantics for the otherwise undocumented amount and currency parameters, while sessionKey is already well described in the schema. It does not detail currency formats or amount bounds, but it covers the main gaps.
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 action ('Preview the fees') and resource ('for a given payment amount'), making the purpose unambiguous. It implies a read-only quote operation but does not explicitly differentiate itself from payment-related siblings like createPaymentSession or 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 states that authentication is required and lists the input parameters, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createPaymentSession, payInvoice, or getTransferQuote. It also does not mention the sessionKey vs. OAuth distinction, which is left to the schema.
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.