Skip to main content
Glama

Snip

List own domains

list_domains
Read-onlyIdempotent

The user's own domains (go.yourbrand.com), their state, CNAME target and account-specific TXT ownership proof. Pass a live one as domain to shorten_link. New connections need both DNS records; an old CNAME alone does not prove control. Needs the user signed in to Snip.link; add domains in the dashboard or POST /v1/domains.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the auth requirement, DNS verification semantics (both DNS records required; an old CNAME is insufficient), and where domains are added. It does not cover rate limits or full response structure, but adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Information is front-loaded, every sentence contributes (purpose/fields, downstream use, DNS proof, auth/setup), and there is little filler. It is dense but appropriate given the setup nuances.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies returned fields, auth prerequisites, and verification rules. It could be more explicit about the complete response shape, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the description's mention of domain is for the downstream shorten_link call, not this tool's schema. The baseline for no params is 4.

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 identifies the resource as the user's own domains and enumerates returned attributes such as state, CNAME target, and TXT ownership proof. It does not use an explicit list verb, but the scope is specific and unlikely to be confused with sibling tools.

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 explains the downstream use case (pass a live domain to shorten_link), the DNS prerequisite for new connections, and the sign-in requirement. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or alternative listing tool, but no sibling appears to overlap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources