Fetch a Sitecore security domain by name, or return all domains when the name is omitted, to support access management and audits.
Get Sitecore domains. Omit name to return every domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the unprojected .NET object graph. Very large (100,000+ chars/item); diagnostics only. | |
| name | No | The domain to return, e.g. 'sitecore'. Omit for all domains. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no indication of result size, ordering, or permissions. Its only substantive claim — omitting name returns everything — merely repeats the schema's own parameter description verbatim, so the description carries little incremental value.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and scope come first. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema, so it does not fully earn its place.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is adequate but thin: the agent learns the verb, resource, and the omit-name behavior, but nothing about the shape of the returned domain data. It is the minimum viable coverage rather than a complete picture.
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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both `name` and the diagnostics-only `full` flag. The description restates the `name` behavior without adding format, case-sensitivity, or interaction details between the two parameters.
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?
"Get Sitecore domains" states a specific verb and resource, and the name/verb pairing makes it easy to distinguish from the write siblings security-new-domain and security-remove-domain. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or scoping itself against security-get-user/security-get-role, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
"Omit name to return every domain" gives a selection rule for one parameter, which implies the two usage modes (single domain vs. all domains). There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the other security-get-* tools, and 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.