Configure which target domains are allowed for outgoing requests; an empty list denies all, and private:host should be reserved for trusted internal hosts.
Configure explicit target domains allowed for outgoing requests. Empty denies all. Use private:host only for trusted internal hosts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | List of safe domains |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that an empty list denies all traffic and flags the private:host risk, but omits whether the call replaces or merges existing entries, whether it takes effect immediately, and what permissions are required — significant gaps for a security-sensitive mutation.
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?
Three terse sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what it configures, the empty-list behavior, and the private:host caveat. Nothing is redundant and the key constraint is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and entry syntax. It is nearly complete; the main omission is replace-vs-merge semantics for an existing allowlist.
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 100%, so the single parameter is documented, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that an empty array denies all and that private:host entries should be reserved for trusted internal hosts. This directly informs how to populate the array.
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 and resource: configuring the explicit allowlist of domains permitted for outgoing requests. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling env_get_allowlist. It stops short of naming that sibling or other alternatives explicitly, 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?
Provides some operational guidance ('Empty denies all', 'Use private:host only for trusted internal hosts'), which implies when the tool matters, but never states when to use this versus env_get_allowlist or env_configure, nor any prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.