Suggest alternative domain names if the requested one is unavailable (legacy method). Required: domain (e.g., 'example.com'). Optional: limit (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| 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. It adds useful context by marking the method as legacy and by scoping behavior to unavailable domains, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or disclose any rate-limit/deprecation implications.
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?
A single compact sentence delivers purpose, condition, legacy status, and parameter guidance with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds the parameter details 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?
The tool is simple and low-risk, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return shape (e.g., list of domain strings) and clarify whether this legacy endpoint can still be used. It gives the essentials for calling the endpoint, yet leaves output behavior and deprecation status under-specified.
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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the two undocumented parameters: it marks domain as required with a concrete example ('example.com') and documents limit's default of 10. The sessionKey parameter is already described in the schema, so all parameters are meaningfully explained.
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 identifies the action (suggest), the resource (alternative domain names), and the trigger condition (requested domain unavailable), so an agent understands the core purpose. It is less explicit about how this differs from sibling tools like generateDomainSuggestions or bulkDomainSuggestions, though 'legacy method' gives a partial distinction.
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?
It states the intended use case — suggest alternatives only when the requested domain is unavailable — which gives helpful context. However, it does not name alternatives or say when to prefer the newer suggestion tools, and 'legacy method' only implies that other tools may be better choices.
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.