Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mx-route-mcp

mx-route-mcp

by MauiGrowth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List domain pointers

list_domain_pointers
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all aliases and redirects that point to a domain, showing each pointer domain, pointer type, and target domain.

Instructions

Lists the domain pointers (aliases and redirects) that point at a domain. Each entry has the pointer domain, its type (alias or redirect) and the target domain.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "list_domain_pointers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name on the MXroute account, e.g. example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned entry and the two possible pointer types (alias vs redirect).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second explains return contents. Nothing is redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the return entries and pointer types. For a one-parameter read-only list tool this is largely complete, though it omits any note on empty results or permissions scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single, well-documented 'domain' parameter including a pattern and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (domain pointers), and even defines the term as 'aliases and redirects' with the fields each entry carries. That is enough to separate it from siblings like list_domains or create/delete_domain_pointer, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. domain must exist on the MXroute account), and no mention of the create_domain_pointer / delete_domain_pointer siblings that manage the same resource. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools