Create a new Sitecore domain by providing its name, enabling security role and user management within Sitecore.
Creates a new Sitecore domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the unprojected .NET object graph. Very large (100,000+ chars/item); diagnostics only. | |
| name | Yes | The name of the domain to create |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required admin permissions, whether the domain is created empty, or what happens if the name already exists.
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 clean sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient but perhaps too minimal to be maximally useful.
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 simple two-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is minimally viable. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or side effects that an agent performing a security mutation would benefit from knowing.
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 (name, full) are already documented in the schema, including the 'full' diagnostics warning. The description adds no parameter meaning on top, which is the baseline expectation.
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 verb+resource ('Creates a new Sitecore domain'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like security-new-role, security-new-user, or security-get-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 guidance on when to use this versus the other security-new-* tools or when a domain is the right construct. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.