Attach a custom domain to a container and get the DNS records required to complete verification.
Attach a custom domain to a container. Returns the DNS records the user must create; verification then runs from the SnapDeploy UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | e.g. app.example.com | |
| container | Yes | Container name or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns DNS records the user must create and that verification runs later from the SnapDeploy UI, which gives the agent useful expectations about asynchronous follow-up. It does not address edge cases like replacement or reversal, but it covers the core behavior well.
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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the important return/verification behavior following immediately. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool: it states the action, the required user follow-up (DNS records), and the verification path. It could mention constraints like allowed domain formats or idempotency, but those are not essential for a basic correct call.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the result detail (DNS records) but does not deepen the meaning of the domain or container parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a custom domain to a container.' The action and object are unambiguous and clearly distinguish this from container lifecycle, list, and deployment tools in the sibling set.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but does not state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no explicit guidance such as 'use this when...' or 'do not use this if...'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.