Allowlist a customer-owned hostname so SplitLaunch pixel and redirect experiments can run safely on that domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Hostname only, e.g. example.com, not a full URL. | |
| projectId | No | Optional project ID. Omit only when the API key is project-scoped or the account has a clear default project. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the safety reason for allowlisting, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent or if there are side effects beyond adding the domain. Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, so description adds moderate value.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
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 description adequately explains the tool's function for its complexity level, but could be improved by mentioning expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation of add) given that no output schema is provided. Still, it covers the core purpose well.
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 100%, with both parameters well-described. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 'Allowlist' and clearly identifies the resource (customer-owned hostname) and the purpose (to run SplitLaunch pixel and redirect experiments safely). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings (domains_list, domains_remove) by indicating the action of adding a domain.
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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to allowlist a domain for experiments), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like domains_list or domains_remove. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action combination (e.g., domains_add, experiments_create, goals_deactivate, reports_experiment_chart). There is no overlap or ambiguity; even the three report tools serve clearly different purposes (totals, time-series, channel breakdown).
The vast majority of tools follow a resource_action snake_case pattern (domains_add, experiments_list). A couple deviate (billing_portal, usage_summary) but still place the resource first, making the pattern predictable and easy to parse.
With 23 tools covering projects, domains, experiments, goals, reports, billing, health, and usage, the count is well-scoped for a split-testing platform. Each tool addresses a specific need without ballooning into excessive granularity.
The tool surface provides CRUD-like operations for core entities (projects, experiments, goals, domains) and essential report types. Minor gaps exist (no goal update tool, no experiment delete—only archive) but these are reasonable trade-offs for the domain.
