Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List domains

air_list_domains
Read-only

Lists domains accessible with your API key, returning the bound domain for domain-scoped service account keys. Requires domains:read scope.

Instructions

List domains visible to the API key. For domain-scoped service account keys, returns the single bound domain. Requires domains:read scope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "air_list_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the auth scope requirement and the fact that domain-scoped keys collapse the result to a single bound domain. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the qualifiers. Every sentence adds distinct information (scope, edge case, auth requirement) with no filler.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description covers what is returned, under what key scoping, and what scope is required. Only return-shape/ordering details are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter syntax for the description to explain away, and the empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous.

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 ('List') and resource ('domains') and clarifies the scoping semantics: domains visible to the API key, with a special case for domain-scoped service account keys. This differentiates it from the singular air_get_domain sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description supplies a prerequisite ('Requires domains:read scope') and explains the domain-scoped-key edge case, which helps an agent anticipate behavior. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over air_get_domain or air_get_domain_portfolio, so usage is only implied.

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