Duplicate listing of the same server under an old namespace. The maintained listing is Layero (ru.layero/layero): same endpoint https://mcp.layero.ru/mcp, current description and tools. The landing-page generator described here was removed in MCP 2.0.
list_domainsThe project's own domains and their state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | The project: its slug (`my-site`) or id, as listed by `my_projects`. The site address works too (`https://clear-garden-vypm.layero.app` or just `clear-garden-vypm`) — note that the address host is NOT always the slug. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`."New value: +"The project: its slug (`my-site`) or id, as listed by `my_projects`. The site address works too (`https://clear-garden-vypm.layero.app` or just `clear-garden-vypm`) — note that the address host is NOT always the slug."Input schema / properties / project / descriptionAdded value: +"Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('project's own domains') and result content ('state'), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose pagination, filtering, or any additional behavioral traits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the noun-phrase structure works because the tool name supplies the verb.
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 low-complexity read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, this is nearly complete. It could be richer by referencing alternatives or stating return-shaped details, but the existing schema and annotations cover most invocation needs.
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 the project parameter is already well documented with slug/id/address examples. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the listing is scoped to a project.
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 ('project's own domains') and the info returned ('their state'), which is clear from the name and title. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_domain or connect_domain, though 'own domains' hints at project-scoped domain listing.
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 instead of check_domain, connect_domain, or site_status. The description gives no exclusions, alternatives, or selection conditions.
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.