Generate domain suggestions by spinning/replacing words. Required: name (e.g., 'pizza,restaurant'). Optional: position (0-based index), similarity (0.0-1.0), tlds ('com,net'), lang ('eng'), maxResults (20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tlds | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| similarity | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the generation approach ('spinning/replacing words') and parameter constraints, but it does not describe output shape, side effects, rate limits, or error behaviors.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then efficiently enumerates required and optional parameters. No filler or redundant information 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full input contract well, including defaults/ranges for optional fields. It could be more complete by stating the return format, but the call contract itself is fully actionable.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter with concrete examples and constraints: name ('pizza,restaurant'), position (0-based), similarity (0.0-1.0), tlds ('com,net'), lang ('eng'), and maxResults (20). This gives the agent everything needed to construct a valid call.
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 states a clear verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('domain suggestions'), with the mechanism 'spinning/replacing words' making the tool's function distinct. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so the differentiation is conveyed only through the wording rather than a direct comparison.
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 required and optional parameters with examples, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, or suggestAlternatives. No exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are provided.
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.