Update nameservers for a domain. Required: domain (e.g., 'example.com'), nameservers (e.g., ['ns1.example.com', 'ns2.example.com'])
| 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. | |
| nameservers | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update nameservers' without explaining side effects, propagation, authorization requirements, or whether the change overwrites existing nameservers. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with useful examples and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and required inputs.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important operational context: expected result, error conditions, authentication needs, and whether this is an immediate or asynchronous operation. It is minimally adequate for constructing a call but not complete enough for confident agent decision-making.
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%, and the two required parameters lack schema descriptions. The description adds examples for both domain and nameservers, which helps, but it does not explain constraints such as minimum number of nameservers or accepted name formats. It partially compensates for the sparse schema but not fully.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Update nameservers for a domain.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateDnsRecord, updateDomainAutoRenew, and updateDomainPrivacy. The inline examples for domain and nameservers further sharpen the tool's intent.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateDnsRecord or initializeDnsZone. The description only restates the action and required parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.
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.