Scopeweb

list_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the user's domain inventory: every domain with a verification challenge issued or completed, with cached liveness, classification, title and expiry. For portfolio, renewal and 'what do I own' questions. Each entry carries scan_age_ms, so a stale verdict reads as stale. Read-only. Cannot spend money.

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": "list_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domains`	Yes
`verified_count`	No
`unverified_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "domains": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "unverified_count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "verified_count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domains"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the repetition of "Read-only" adds little. However "Cannot spend money" adds a cost-safety guarantee not expressible in the annotations, and "cached liveness" plus "Each entry carries scan_age_ms, so a stale verdict reads as stale" discloses an important data-freshness caveat the agent would otherwise misread as live data.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, use cases, and safety/freshness caveats. The scope statement is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the structured fields except the harmless read-only restatement.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters and rich annotations the remaining burden is scope, freshness and cost semantics — all covered. An agent can decide to call this and interpret the results correctly from the definition alone.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the user's domain inventory") and narrows the scope precisely to "every domain with a verification challenge issued or completed," enumerating the fields returned (liveness, classification, title, expiry). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like check_live, scan_namespace or verify_ownership, which act on single domains rather than returning the full inventory.

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?

"For portfolio, renewal and 'what do I own' questions" gives concrete use cases an agent can match against user intent. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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

All Scopeweb tools Inspect

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

Need Help?