get_domainRetrieve a domain's registration details—expiry, DNSSEC, autorenew, delegation—and its nameservers to verify configuration and renewal status.
Get one domain's registration details (expiry, DNSSEC, autorenew, delegation) together with its nameservers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. 'example.com'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| nameservers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by enumerating the exact payload an agent will receive (registration fields plus nameservers). It stops short of disclosing error behavior for unknown domains or any lookup/latency caveats.
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 verb and scope come first and the parenthetical field list earns its space by signalling what the response contains.
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?
Low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described at length; the description is sufficient to select and invoke it. A brief note on the not-found case or sibling routing would make it fully complete.
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% and the single 'domain' parameter is documented in-schema with an example ('example.com'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Get one domain's registration details') and enumerates the data returned (expiry, DNSSEC, autorenew, delegation, nameservers). The singular 'one domain' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_domains sibling, though it never names that 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 only implied: 'one domain' suggests a single-record lookup as opposed to a listing, which points an agent toward this tool over list_domains. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement (e.g. required auth or whether the domain must be registered with this account).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.