Request that a domain transfer authorization code be emailed to the domain owner. Use the domain name to start the deferred delivery for a managed LWS domain.
Have the transfer authorization code e-mailed to the domain owner (deferred).
| 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 indicate destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the code is emailed to the domain owner and that the action is deferred, which is useful context, but it does not explain the destructive nature, auth requirements, or whether repeated calls behave differently. The description does not contradict 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 a single concise sentence with the effect front-loaded. However, the appended '(deferred)' is slightly vague and could be clearer, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 one parameter, full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits prerequisites, explicit usage context, and a clear explanation of what 'deferred' means for the caller.
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 required domain parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the domain parameter, 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 states a specific action: requesting the transfer authorization code to be emailed to the domain owner. It uses a passive construction ('Have ... e-mailed') and does not distinguish this from related domain-transfer siblings such as set_transfer_protection, but the core purpose is clear.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told under what circumstances this tool should be chosen over another, nor what conditions must hold before calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.