Skip to main content
Glama

Layero

by ru.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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesДомен без схемы и без слеша: `example.ru` или `www.example.ru`. Со схемой (`https://…`) платформа ответит отказом 422.
projectYesПроект: 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
stateYes
checksNo
domainYes
recordsYes
workingYes
next_actionYes
next_check_hintNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"Домен без схемы и без слеша: `example.ru` или `www.example.ru`. Со схемой (`https://…`) платформа ответит отказом 422."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes well beyond the openWorldHint annotation by revealing the human-mediated DNS process, propagation timing, and the platform's independent re-checking. However, it contains a factual contradiction: it claims the platform reduces a full URL like `https://shop.example.com/page` to `shop.example.com`, while the schema explicitly states a scheme will result in a 422 error. This inconsistency undermines the transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a highlighted behavioral callout with actionable instructions, and a short note on input handling. Every sentence adds necessary context without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the entire workflow: what the call yields (DNS records), what to do with them, what not to do (wait), and how to follow up (via `check_domain`). This is highly complete for a human-in-the-loop operation. The minor deduction stems from the conflicting URL-handling statement, which leaves the agent unsure about accepted input formats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description's only additional parameter note—that the address can be passed as-is and is normalized—contradicts the schema's 422-on-scheme rule, providing confusing rather than helpful semantics. Thus the description adds no positive value beyond the schema and even introduces a discrepancy.

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 immediately states 'Connect a custom domain to a site' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by referencing `check_domain` for later verification and `my_projects` for project slug resolution, positioning this as the initiating 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: show DNS records to the user, do not wait for readiness because the platform re-checks automatically, and use `check_domain` afterward. It also tells the agent to obtain a slug from `my_projects` when needed, making the usage context clear and actionable.

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

All Layero toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The deploy lifecycle is cleanly separated into cancel, retry, rollback, diagnose, logs, list, and status, while the site_* tools each answer a different question. Even the two compose_landing tools are explicitly differentiated for model vs. internal use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (check_domain, list_deploys, connect_analytics) with noun-first patterns (site_issues, deploy_logs, env_vars), and some are bare verbs (rollback, whoami). The naming is descriptive and readable, but not consistent enough to predict the style for a new tool.

Tool Count2/5

27 tools exceeds the typical well-scoped range and pushes into 'too many' territory. While the server covers a broad platform scope, many tools are highly specialized (check_copy, site_screenshot), and an agent may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices. Consolidation could reduce the load.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is solid: compose, publish, monitor, diagnose, and rollback, with supporting tools for domains, analytics, performance, and content inspection. However, there are no delete/remove operations for projects, domains, or integrations, and integration management is limited to adding. These are minor gaps that agents can work around, but they are notable for a full platform.

Resources