Check that a mail domain's DNS records resolve; activates the domain for email when all records are found. Returns any still-missing records. Requires authentication. Required: domain.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses a non-obvious side effect beyond the 'verify' name: the domain is activated for email when all records are found. It also states the return value ('returns any still-missing records') and the authentication requirement.
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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no excess explanation. 'Requires authentication' and 'Required: domain' are slightly redundant with the schema, but they are minimal and reinforce important preconditions.
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-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, the state-changing activation side effect, the return value, and required preconditions. It does not specify which DNS records are checked or repeated-call behavior, but these are not critical for correct invocation.
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% (sessionKey is described, domain is not). The description partially compensates by identifying 'domain' as the mail domain whose DNS records are checked and by noting it is required. It does not add format or validation details, but enough context is provided for straightforward use.
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 ('Check'), a precise resource ('a mail domain's DNS records'), and an explicit additional outcome ('activates the domain for email'). This clearly differentiates verifyMailDns from read-only siblings like getMailDnsRecords and manual enablement tools like enableMailDomain.
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 intended use is implied: use this when you want to verify DNS records and automatically activate the mail domain. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to prefer getMailDnsRecords/enableMailDomain instead. It does provide prerequisites such as authentication and the required domain parameter.
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.