Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Outil.io

by io.outil
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Configure domain

configure_domain

Rattacher un domaine réel au site du projet courant. Retourne les enregistrements DNS exacts, le statut et les pages publiées. homepageId facultatif choisit une page déjà publiée et active le site ; ne publie aucun brouillon. Nouveau rattachement idempotent ; modification exige expectedVersion de get_domain_status. Pas d’achat de domaine ni de modification chez le fournisseur DNS : utiliser sa connexion séparée ou transmettre les enregistrements au propriétaire.

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "configure_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostnameYes
homepageIdNo
expectedVersionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false) the description discloses the important behavioural traits: idempotency for first-time attachment, optimistic concurrency via expectedVersion for edits, the fact that homepageId activates the site without publishing drafts, and the hard boundary that nothing is bought or changed at the DNS provider. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent cannot infer from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Five short sentences ordered purpose → return payload → parameter semantics → idempotency/concurrency rule → exclusions, all front-loaded with no filler. It is dense rather than bloated, though the DNS-provider sentence could be tightened slightly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (DNS records, status, published pages). For a three-parameter mutation tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: hostname is the real domain being attached, homepageId is optional and selects an already-published page (activating the site, never publishing a draft), and expectedVersion must come from get_domain_status for modifications. Every parameter gains meaning the bare schema lacks.

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?

The opening sentence gives a concrete verb and resource: attaching a real domain to the current project's site, plus what it returns (DNS records, status, published pages). It partly differentiates itself from siblings by pointing at get_domain_status as the source of expectedVersion, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with verify_domain, the closest neighbouring operation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear conditions are stated: new attachments are idempotent while modifications require expectedVersion from get_domain_status, and domain purchase / DNS-provider edits are explicitly out of scope. What is missing is forward routing to the sibling tools (verify_domain for propagation checks, get_domain_status for reading state before updating).

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

All Outil.io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources