Update a domain's TLS policy, tracking preferences, and capabilities. Adjust open/click tracking, tracking subdomain, or receiving mode to manage email behavior.
Update a domain's tracking/TLS/capabilities settings (PATCH /domains/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The domain id. | |
| tls | No | Outbound TLS policy. | |
| capabilities | No | e.g. { "receiving": "enabled" }. | |
| open_tracking | No | ||
| click_tracking | No | ||
| tracking_subdomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions PATCH, hinting at partial update semantics, but does not disclose whether unspecified settings are preserved, whether domain verification is required before changing TLS/capabilities, permissions, side effects, or the response shape.
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 that includes the action, resource, settings scope, and HTTP method. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
This is a 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only one sentence. Missing behavioral guidance, clarification of three undocumented parameters, and any sense of prerequisites or return values makes it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 50%, with open_tracking, click_tracking, and tracking_subdomain lacking schema descriptions. The phrase 'tracking/TLS/capabilities settings' groups the payload fields and adds some semantic layer, but it does not explain the undefined booleans/string or the capabilities object beyond their names.
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?
States a specific action ('Update'), resource ('domain'), and scope ('tracking/TLS/capabilities settings'), with the PATCH endpoint further anchoring it. This clearly differentiates it from read-only siblings like get_domain and list_domains, and from delete_domain.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The description implies 'use this when updating domain settings', but it does not direct the agent to get_domain/list_domains for reads or verify_domain/check_domain_mx for validation. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.