Handsome Hosting

Connect a domain

connect_domain

Destructive

Connect a domain the person already owns at another registrar to a running service. method a-record (default) returns the two A records to set; method nameservers creates a zone here and returns our nameservers. Returns the steps and per-registrar guides for the person; the platform verifies every few minutes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "connect_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`method`	No
`wpSwitch`	No	WordPress sites: true moves the site to this name once it answers (its address changes)
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

changedInput schema / properties / wpSwitch / description

Previous value: -"WordPress sites: true moves the site to this name once it answers; ask the person first"New value: +"WordPress sites: true moves the site to this name once it answers (its address changes)"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description never explains what is destructive — notably that the nameservers method creates a zone here and effectively moves DNS control, or what happens to existing records. It does add useful behavior beyond annotations: the platform verifies every few minutes, and each method returns different records/guides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the method branches, then the follow-up behavior. Minor awkwardness in 'the steps and per-registrar guides for the person' but no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-field detail is not needed, yet the description still offers a useful summary of what comes back. The gap is behavioral: a destructiveHint=true tool that silently reconfigures DNS should at least state the risk of the nameservers path and whether an existing zone is overwritten.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: serviceId and wpSwitch are documented in-schema, while `name` is undocumented anywhere. The description adds real meaning for `method` beyond the bare enum (a-record returns two A records; nameservers creates a zone and returns our nameservers), but `name`'s 3–260 char constraint and role are left unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: connects a domain the person already owns at another registrar to a running service. The two method branches (a-record vs nameservers) further pin down what actually happens. It does not name sibling tools like attach_domain or buy_domain, so differentiation is implicit via the 'already owns at another registrar' qualifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition 'already owns at another registrar' implicitly excludes buying/searching and steers away from buy_domain, and the method descriptions imply when each mode applies. However, no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the case where the domain is already on this platform (attach_domain) is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?