verify_champion_domainVerify the exact Helena Good DNS TXT challenge for an organization profile. This performs a bounded public DNS lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_id | Yes | ||
| controller_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive hints, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context with 'bounded public DNS lookup,' but it does not clarify the side effects implied by readOnlyHint=false or what happens on successful versus failed verification. This is not a direct contradiction with the 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 two sentences with no filler. The core verification purpose is front-loaded, and the 'bounded public DNS lookup' qualifier earns its place by adding behavioral precision.
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 output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable. However, the definition is not complete for an agent: it lacks parameter semantics for controller_token, gives no workflow guidance tying it to sibling tools, and does not clarify what 'verify' means in terms of state changes. These are substantial gaps for correctly selecting and invoking the tool.
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 0%, so the description needs to compensate but largely does not. 'For an organization profile' gives weak context for profile_id, but controller_token is completely unexplained, including why it is required and how it relates to the DNS challenge. This is a significant gap for a writeOnly required token.
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 action ('Verify') against a specific resource ('the exact Helena Good DNS TXT challenge for an organization profile') and clarifies the mechanism as a bounded public DNS lookup. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are verification operations.
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 the tool is used to verify a DNS TXT challenge, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to call it relative to related siblings like register_champion_profile or accept_relay. It also provides no exclusions or alternative-tool routing, leaving the workflow to inference.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but get_receipt and get_reach_receipt are easy to confuse because of their similar names and adjacent receipt concepts. The champions lists and relay tools are also related but their descriptions make the distinction clear enough.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_, create_, get_, list_, register_, sponsor_, verify_). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
11 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool addresses a distinct part of the sponsorship/reach workflow: information, sponsorship, receipts, rankings, profile management, and relay attribution. No tool feels redundant.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: learn, sponsor, verify receipts, list champions, register/verify profiles, and handle relays. Minor gaps exist such as no tool to list relays or list receipts by account, but these can be worked around using known IDs.