Статус своего домена: имя, live/pending/issuing/error, текст ошибки и нужные A-записи.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "vebhost_domain"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing the possible status values (live/pending/issuing/error) and that error text and required A-records are returned, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. It does not state that the call is read-only or side-effect free, nor whether it triggers any provisioning/DNS lookup.
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 compact sentence with the resource and the return payload front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is a noun phrase rather than full sentences, which is efficient but slightly terse for the amount of information it tries to convey.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should do more. It covers the conceptual purpose but leaves the agent guessing about the slug's format, error/edge behavior, and how it differs from vebhost_domain_check.
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 0% and there is a single required parameter, 'slug', which the description never explains. 'своего домена' hints that the slug identifies the domain, but it is ambiguous whether slug is a domain name, a site slug, or an internal identifier.
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 names a specific resource (your domain) and a specific operation (status), and even enumerates the returned fields (name, live/pending/issuing/error, error text, required A-records). It is clearly distinct from vebhost_domain_bind conceptually, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the close sibling vebhost_domain_check.
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 only implied: asking for 'the status of your own domain' suggests a read/inspection call, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives like vebhost_domain_check, and no prerequisites mentioned. An agent must infer the boundary from the sibling name 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.