Retrieve all DNS domains managed in an OnlyDNS account, with optional pagination, so AI agents can inspect and manage DNS zones.
List all DNS domains managed in the OnlyDNS account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of domains to return (default: 200, max: 1000) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default: 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only scope (account-wide domains) and gives no information about pagination behavior, auth/permission requirements, ordering, or whether results are cached — thin for a no-annotation tool.
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 scope qualifier is placed immediately after the verb+resource.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with two fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any read-only/permission context that would matter given the absence of annotations.
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%, with limit and offset fully documented inline including defaults and bounds. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (List) and resource (DNS domains) scoped to the OnlyDNS account, which is enough to distinguish it from record- or TSIG-focused siblings. However it does not name or contrast with any alternative (e.g. list_records), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The phrase 'List all' implies an unfiltered enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a more targeted tool (list_records) is preferable, and no note about paginating large accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.