get_domainRetrieve details for a specific MXroute domain, including mail hosting status, SSL status, and domain pointers.
Returns details for one domain: whether mail hosting is enabled, whether SSL is enabled, and its domain pointers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name on the MXroute account, e.g. example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. The description adds what data comes back, which is useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for nonexistent domains, or side effects.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a simple single-entity read; only failure modes (unknown domain) are unstated.
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% and the single 'domain' parameter is documented with an example (example.com) and a pattern. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns details for one domain') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (mail hosting status, SSL status, domain pointers). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_domains by scoping to 'one domain', but never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read tool for a single domain's configuration, contrasted against list_domains and delete_domain. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.