domains_validateCheck if a domain name is valid and available before creating it. Returns the normalized form and availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check (e.g. "www.example.com"). Call before domains_set to check availability. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful traits beyond that: it returns the normalized form and reports availability rather than just performing a boolean check. No contradiction with annotations.
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 that states the action, purpose, and return value with no filler.
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 one-parameter read-only check, the description covers the purpose, when to call it, and the broad return semantics. There is no output schema, so exact response fields (e.g., boolean vs status string) are not specified, but the gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Parameter schema coverage is 100% and the domain parameter already includes an example and a pointer to domains_set. The description contributes nothing beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('domain name'), and states the outcome: validity, availability, and normalized form. The 'before creating it' phrase clearly separates it from creation tools like domains_set.
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 and the schema parameter explicitly say to call this before creating a domain ('Call before domains_set'), giving clear context. It does not discuss exclusions or cases where validation is unnecessary, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
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.
Deployment tools and domain tools are cleanly separated by resource prefix, and each tool targets a distinct action (list/get/upload/delete/set vs validate/set/records/verify). The few related domain tools—dns, records, share, verify—have clear boundaries around provider lookup, record display, shareable links, and verification triggering.
Tool names consistently follow a resource_action pattern: deployments_* and domains_* with clear verbs. The only deviation is whoami, which is a conventional standalone name but does not follow the noun_verb structure; this is a minor exception.
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of the ideal range but every tool serves a distinct purpose within the static-hosting and custom-domain lifecycle. There is no apparent redundancy or bloat.
The deployment surface covers upload, read, list, update labels, and delete, while the domain surface covers validation, creation/update, details, listing, DNS records, verification, sharing, and deletion. The account check via whoami rounds out the lifecycle with no obvious dead ends.