list_domainsReturns custom hostnames on one slug, or on every site the token owns when slug is omitted. Inputs: token, and optional slug. Status is the last checked value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Optional slug you own. Omit to list every hostname on this token. | |
| token | No | Bearer token returned by your first publish (deed_tok_...). Optional if the MCP client sends Authorization: Bearer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral note — that status reflects the last-checked value, i.e. it may be stale — but otherwise adds no extra behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences, scope behavior front-loaded, no filler. The 'Inputs: token, and optional slug' sentence is largely redundant with the schema, a minor waste.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description names what is returned (custom hostnames) plus the meaning of the status field, which is adequate for a simple list tool. It could mention ordering or result size, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both token and slug are already documented, including the fallback to the Authorization header. The description's restatement of the inputs and the omit-slug behavior adds nothing beyond what the schema already says; baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Returns custom hostnames') and clarifies the two scope modes (one slug vs. every site on the token). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling domain_status, which an agent may reasonably confuse with a per-domain lookup.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope rules: omit slug to list everything, supply slug to narrow. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to domain_status, add_domain, or remove_domain, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.
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.