Retrieve a domain's owner, nameservers, and status flags such as redemption, hold, or transfer lock for domains managed in an LWS account.
Get a domain's owner, nameservers and status flags (redemption, hold, transfer lock).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name managed by the LWS account, e.g. example.fr |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return payload and names the status flags, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the domain must belong to the account (that detail sits in the schema), or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the payload are both stated immediately and nothing repeats structured fields.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description nonetheless signals what the response contains. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains the domain format with a pattern and an example. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?
States a specific verb (Get) plus resource (domain) and enumerates what it returns: owner, nameservers, and status flags such as redemption, hold, and transfer lock. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_dns_zone or list_contacts, though it never names a 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 implied by the enumerated contents — you call it to inspect registration-level data for a domain. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the alternative tools that return DNS records or contact details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.