add_domainServe a site on a domain the user owns. Returns the CNAME to add (hostname → cname.shiply.now); the certificate issues automatically once DNS resolves. Poll with check_domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | owned site slug to serve there | |
| hostname | Yes | full hostname to serve, e.g. www.example.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / hostname / descriptionAdded value: +"full hostname to serve, e.g. www.example.com"Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"owned site slug to serve there"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns CNAME, certificate issues automatically after DNS resolves, and suggests polling with check_domain. No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words, and clear structure.
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?
Given low complexity and rich schema/annotations, the description covers the tool's operation, return value, and next steps. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., domain ownership) but that is already implied.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described. The description adds only minor context (hostname example, slug reference), so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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?
The description clearly states the tool serves a site on a user-owned domain, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_custom_domain by focusing on serving a site and returning the CNAME.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use (to serve a site on a domain) and what to do after (poll with check_domain). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but it is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.