Fetch a domain's details, including DNS records and verification status, by providing its unique ID. Resolve domain setup questions by returning current configurations for troubleshooting or confirmation.
Retrieve a domain, including its DNS records and verification status (GET /domains/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The domain id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does 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 disclose that the tool is read-only (retrieve) and mentions the response includes DNS records and verification status. However, it does not mention any side effects (likely none), authorization requirements, or rate limits. The mention of GET /domains/:id adds context about the underlying API operation.
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 sentence that precisely states the action, resource, and return contents. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes the endpoint for reference. No wasted words.
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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, and the description covers the return content. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the return fields is essential and is done. The only minor gap is not stating that the domain must exist or what errors might occur, but the description is adequate for a simple retrieval.
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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameter 'id' is well documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a domain and explicitly includes the data returned: DNS records and verification status. The verb 'Retrieve' matches the GET operation, and the description differentiates it from sibling tools like update_domain or delete_domain by indicating a read operation.
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 implicitly indicates this is for reading a domain's information, as opposed to updating, deleting, or verifying. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over verify_domain or list_domains, but the read context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.