Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Outil.io

by io.outil
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get domain status

get_domain_status
Read-only

Lire le domaine du projet, les DNS attendus et observés, la page d’accueil, le provisionnement et une vérification HTTPS réelle. status active signifie que le bon site répond avec un certificat valide. Racine : A/AAAA ; sous-domaine : CNAME possible. Ne pas modifier les MX. Relire après propagation DNS puis verify_domain.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_domain_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that a real HTTPS request is performed (external network dependency), explains the semantics of the returned status, and warns against touching MX records. It stops short of describing latency, caching, or failure behavior when DNS is still propagating.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what is read comes first, then status semantics, then DNS notes, then the follow-up action. Sentences are dense and occasionally telegraphic ('Racine : A/AAAA ; sous-domaine : CNAME possible'), but no line is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return content, and it does so by enumerating the DNS, homepage, provisioning and HTTPS dimensions plus the meaning of the status value. What remains thin is how to interpret a non-active status or how long to wait before re-reading.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The DNS record-type notes (A/AAAA for root, CNAME for subdomain) are useful context for interpreting output rather than parameters.

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 description names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what is read: project domain, expected vs observed DNS, homepage, provisioning, and a real HTTPS check. It also defines the meaning of 'status active', which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with configure_domain, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: re-read after DNS propagation, then call verify_domain, which names the alternative tool and the condition for moving to it. It also adds a guardrail ('Ne pas modifier les MX') that shapes how the agent should act on the result. There is no explicit statement of when not to call it (e.g., before a domain is configured).

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