deployments_verifyCustomDomainCheck the DNS for the attached custom domain.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "deployments_verifyCustomDomain"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Check' frames this as a read-only inspection, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true with idempotentHint=false. The description discloses nothing about side effects, what can be destroyed on a failed verification, or whether it can be safely retried.
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?
A single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity comes at the cost of underspecification rather than efficiency. Every sentence 'earns its place' only because there is so little content.
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?
For a non-idempotent, potentially destructive operation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain outcomes (what a failed verification does to the domain) and the id's meaning. Neither is present, so the agent can only guess at behavior.
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?
There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says what the id identifies (presumably the deployment or the domain). This is the main ambiguity an agent would hit when calling the tool.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check the DNS') and resource ('the attached custom domain'), so the agent knows it verifies DNS for an already-attached domain. It stops short of saying what the check does or returns, and does not distinguish itself from siblings like setCustomDomain or removeCustomDomain.
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?
No guidance on when to run this versus setCustomDomain/removeCustomDomain, no prerequisites (does a domain have to be attached first?), and no mention of what to do with the result. The phrase 'attached custom domain' implies a precondition but does not state it explicitly.
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.