Layero

Подключить свой домен

connect_domain

Connect a custom domain to a site.

IMPORTANT: between this call and a working domain stands A PERSON. You
get DNS records — show them to the user and explain they go in at their
domain registrar. Do not wait for readiness: DNS propagates in minutes
to an hour, the platform re-checks on its own, and you check later via
`check_domain`. Spinning here burns time and context for nothing.

The address can be passed as-is: the platform reduces
`https://shop.example.com/page` to `shop.example.com` itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Домен без схемы и без слеша: `example.ru` или `www.example.ru`. Со схемой (`https://…`) платформа ответит отказом 422.
`project`	Yes	Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`state`	Yes
`checks`	No
`domain`	Yes
`records`	Yes
`working`	Yes
`next_action`	Yes
`next_check_hint`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: a human must configure DNS, the platform rechecks automatically, and waiting is counterproductive. This adds rich context beyond the `openWorldHint` annotation and aligns with the external interaction hint.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a critical warning and a brief normalization note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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, return value details are not needed. The description fully covers the human-in-the-loop workflow, DNS timing, and follow-up action via `check_domain`, making it complete for the task's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining URL normalization ('reduces https://shop.example.com/page to shop.example.com itself'), which is not in the schema and clarifies acceptable input formats beyond the schema's restrictions.

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?

The description opens with 'Connect a custom domain to a site,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `check_domain` (verification) and `list_domains` (listing) by focusing on the connection action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: show DNS records to the user, do not wait for readiness, and check later via `check_domain`. It names the alternative tool and explains the timing and workflow, which is ideal for agent guidance.

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

All Layero tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinct, but there's real confusion risk between the deploy-related set (cancel_deploy, retry_deploy, deploy_logs, diagnose_deploy) and the site-inspection set (site_status, read_site, site_issues, site_screenshot) where purposes overlap. compose_landing vs compose_landing_submit are differentiated mostly by an obscure note rather than naming. Several tools address similar concepts (landing composition, publishing, deploy) making agent misselection plausible.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use a clean verb_noun pattern (list_deploys, connect_domain, check_domain, publish_landing, read_site, rollback). However, conventions are mixed: some use compose/x/check/y (check_copy, check_domain, check_performance) while others use site_x (site_status, site_analytics, site_issues, site_screenshot) with inconsistent ordering. Descriptions mix English and Russian heavily, though that's content not naming.

Tool Count4/5

27 tools is a large but arguably justified surface for a full site-building/deploying/monitoring platform spanning composition, domain management, deploys, performance, analytics, and environment configuration. It sits slightly above what feels tight, but each tool has a defined role in the overall workflow.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full landing lifecycle: compose, publish, deploy, monitor, rollback, diagnose, and connect external resources (domain, analytics, integrations). Minor gaps: no explicit tool for site deletion/teardown, only read_site for editing with refactor_site being narrow, and no way to update an existing landing's text beyond refactor. Still, core CRUD and operational flows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?