air_get_domainResolve a domain using its PID from domain list results or by organization slug and domain slug through slug lookup.
Resolve a domain by pid from air_list_domains results, or by orgSlug + domainSlug via slug lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgSlug | No | Organization slug for lookup | |
| domainPid | No | Domain pid from air_list_domains | |
| domainSlug | No | Domain slug for lookup |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful dependency that domainPid must come from a prior air_list_domains call, but says nothing about failure behavior when a domain is not found or any rate/scope limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by both resolution paths. Every clause earns its place.
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 carries the burden of conveying the return, and it says only that a domain is 'resolved' without describing the returned shape or error case. It does adequately cover the input paths for a 3-parameter read tool, so it is minimally viable rather than deficient.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it establishes that domainPid is an alternative to the orgSlug+domainSlug pair and where the pid comes from. This disambiguates the three optional, non-required parameters that the schema lists without indicating they are mutually exclusive paths.
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 verb+resource ('Resolve a domain') and enumerates the two resolution paths (pid, or orgSlug+domainSlug). It names the sibling air_list_domains as the source of pids, which helps separate it from air_list_domains. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with other get_* siblings (air_get_project, air_get_assessment), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
It clearly describes the two invocation modes and where the pid value originates ('from air_list_domains results'), which is actionable routing guidance. It does not state when to prefer one path over the other or when not to use this tool at all, so no explicit exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.