updateDomainUpdate a domain's configuration for a Cloady app by specifying workspace slug, app slug, and domain ID, with optional environment, region, and redirect settings.
Update a domain configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| appSlug | Yes | ||
| domainId | Yes | ||
| requestBody | No | The JSON request body. | |
| workspaceSlug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating/destructive nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what gets changed, side effects, permissions), so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) but under-specified for a tool with six parameters and a nested object. It lacks any structure or front-loaded key information, making it insufficiently informative.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, low parameter coverage, and no guidance on return values, side effects, or usage, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.
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 only 17%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (workspaceSlug, appSlug, domainId, env, region, requestBody). It fails to compensate for the sparse schema, leaving the agent without clues about parameter meaning.
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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('domain configuration'), which is specific enough to distinguish from createDomain and deleteDomain. It doesn't list the updatable fields, but the core action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createDomain or deleteDomain. The description simply states the action without any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.