Fetch details of a specific domain handle by its ID. Use this to look up registrant, admin, or technical contact information stored in Contabo domain handle records.
Get specific handle [GET /v1/domains/handles/{handleId}] Get specific handle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handleId | Yes | The identifier of the handle | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note on permissions, error behavior for an unknown handleId, or what the response contains — so it earns no credit above the annotation baseline.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the sentence is duplicated (name, route, then the same phrase again), so one of the two statements is pure waste. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
With no output schema, the description should at least say what a handle is (a domain contact record) and roughly what is returned; it says neither. Schema coverage and annotations are complete, but an agent gets no domain concept or return-value context from the description.
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%: handleId is documented as "The identifier of the handle" and x-trace-id as a tracing identifier. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 is essentially the tool name and annotation title restated verbatim ("Get specific handle" twice). The only added signal is the HTTP route `[GET /v1/domains/handles/{handleId}]`, which hints the handle is domain-scoped, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_handles or retrieve_domain beyond the implicit singular/plural contrast.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternatives (list_handles, retrieve_domain, set_default_handle), and no preconditions. The word "specific" weakly implies single-resource lookup by ID versus a list, but that is inference, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.