list_domainsThe project's own domains and their state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds minimal behavioral context. 'Their state' hints at return content, but there is no mention of pagination, permissions, or whether it only lists connected domains.
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?
The description is a single short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks a verb and sufficient context.
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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It could benefit from stating what 'state' includes and when to use this tool.
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?
The input schema fully documents the 'project' parameter, including the slug/id distinction and how to derive the slug. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, so 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?
The description identifies the resource ('domains') and scope ('project's own'), but lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns'. It is clear enough given the tool name, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_domain or connect_domain.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that check_domain is for individual domain checks or connect_domain for adding domains.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.